The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Polskie Zaklady Lotnicze Spolka zo.o. Model PZL M26 01 airplanes. This AD requires you to repetitively inspect fuselage frame No. XI for cracks and to replace fuselage frame No. XI and install reinforcement modifications if any cracks are found. The installation of reinforcement modifications is terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirement. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the airworthiness authority for the European Union. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in fuselage frame No. XI, which could result in failure of this frame. This failure could lead to failure of the tail section of the airplane.

DATES:

This AD becomes effective on February 24, 2006.

As of February 24, 2006, the Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulation.

What events have caused this AD? The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the airworthiness authority for the European Union, recently notified FAA that an unsafe condition may exist on certain Polskie Zaklady Lotnicze Spolka zo.o. Model PZL M26 01airplanes. The EASA reports that during the inspection of a Polskie Zaklady Lotnicze Spolka zo.o. Model PZL M26 01 airplane, cracks were found in frame no. XI at the rear of the fuselage.

The EASA further reports that the type certificate holder, Polskie Zaklady Lotnicze Spolka zo.o., believes that these cracks in the fuselage are due to excessive stresses generated by vertical tail loads when operating the airplane in the aerobatic category.

What is the potential impact if FAA took no action? Cracks in fuselage frame No. XI could result in failure of this frame and the tail section of the airplane.

Is there service information that applies to this subject? Polskie Zaklady Lotnicze Spolka zo.o. has issued Bulletin No. E/62.018/2005, dated November 30, 2005.

What are the provisions of this service information? The service bulletin includes procedures for:

What action did the EASA take? The EASA classified this service bulletin as mandatory and issued EASA AD Number 2006-0011-E, dated January 12, 2006, to ensure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in the European Union.

Did the EASA inform the United States under the bilateral airworthiness agreement? These Polskie Zaklady Lotnicze Spolka zo.o. Model PZL M26 01 airplanes are manufactured in Poland (a member state of the European Union and EASA) and are type-certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement.

Under this bilateral airworthiness agreement, the EASA has kept us informed of the situation described above.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of This AD

What has FAA decided? We have examined the EASA's findings, reviewed all available information, and determined that we need to issue an AD for products of this type design that are certificated for operation in the United States.

Since the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other Polskie Zaklady Lotnicze Spolka zo.o. Model PZL M26 01 airplanes of the same type design that are registered in the United States, we are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in fuselage frame No. XI, which could result in failure of this frame and the tail section of the airplane.

What does this AD require? This AD requires you to incorporate the actions in the previously-referenced service bulletin.

In preparing this rule, we contacted type clubs and aircraft operators to get technical information and information on operational and economic impacts. We did not receive any information through these contacts. If received, we would have included a discussion of any information that may have influenced this action in the rulemaking docket.

How does the revision to 14 CFR part 39 affect this AD? On July 10, 2002, we published a new version of 14 CFR part 39 (67 FR 47997, July 22, 2002), which governs FAA's AD system. This regulation now includes material that relates to altered products, special flight permits, and alternative methods of compliance. This material previously was included in each individual AD. Since this material is included in 14 CFR part 39, we will not include it in future AD actions.

Comments Invited

Will I have the opportunity to comment before you issue the rule? This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight safety and was not preceded by notice and an opportunity for public comment; however, we invite you to submit any written relevant data, views, or arguments regarding this AD. Send your comments to an address listed under ADDRESSES. Include the docket number, “FAA-2006-23733; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-09-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://dms.dot.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact with FAA personnel concerning this AD.

Using the search function of our docket web site, anyone can find and read the comments received into any of our dockets, including the name of the individual who sent the comment (or signed the comment on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). This is docket number FAA-2006-23733; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-09-AD. You may review the DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

Are there any specific portions of this AD I should pay attention to? We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this AD. If you contact us through a nonwritten communication and that contact relates to a substantive part of this AD, we will summarize the contact and place the summary in the docket. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this AD in light of those comments and contacts.

Docket Information

Where can I go to view the docket information? You may view the AD docket that contains the AD, any comments received, and any final disposition in person at the DMS Docket Offices between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. (eastern time), Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The Docket Office (telephone 1-800-647-5227) is located on the plaza level of the Department of Transportation NASSIF Building at the street address stated in ADDRESSES. You may also view the AD docket on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. The comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after the DMS receives them.

Authority for This Rulemaking

What authority does FAA have for issuing this rulemaking action? Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in subtitle VII, part A, subpart III, section 44701, “General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this AD.

Regulatory Findings

Will this AD impact various entities? We have determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

Will this AD involve a significant rule or regulatory action? For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866;

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and

3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

We prepared a summary of the costs to comply with this AD (and other information as included in the Regulatory Evaluation) and placed it in the AD Docket. You may get a copy of this summary by sending a request to us at the address listed under ADDRESSES. Include “Docket No. FAA-2006-23733; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-09-AD” in your request.

Adoption of the Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority:

(c) This AD affects Model PZL M26 01, serial numbers 1APP01-01 and 1AP002-01 through 1AP002-06, that are certificated in any category.

What Is the Unsafe Condition Presented in This AD?

(d) This AD is the result of mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), the airworthiness authority, for the European Union. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct cracks in fuselage frame No. XI, which could result in failure of this frame. This failure could lead to the failure of the tail section of the airplane.

What Must I Do To Address This Problem?

(e) To address this problem, you must do the following:

ActionsComplianceProcedures(1) Inspect fuselage frame No. XI for any cracksBefore further flight after February 24, 2006 (the effective date of this AD). Thereafter, repetitively inspect every 20 hours time-in-service (TIS) until you do the installation of reinforcement modifications for fuselage frame No. XI required by paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this ADFollow Polskie Zaklady Lotnicze Sp. zo.o. Bulletin No. E/62.018/2005, dated November 30, 2005.(2) If you find any cracks in fuselage frame No. XI as a result of any inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD, you must:

(i) Remove and replace any cracked fuselage frame No. XI; and

(ii) Do the installation of reinforcement modifications for fuselage frame No. XI.

Before further after the inspection required by paragraph (e)(1) of this AD. The installation of reinforcement modifications required by paragraph (e)(2)(ii) of this AD is the terminating action for the repetitive inspection requirements of paragraph (e)(1) of this ADFollow Polskie Zaklady Lotnicze Sp. zo.o. Bulletin No. E/62.018/2005, dated November 30, 2005.(3) Do not install any fuselage frame No. XI without also the reinforcement modifications required by paragraph (e)(2)(i) of this AdAs of February 24, 2006 (the effective date of this AD)Follow Polskie Zaklady Lotnicze Sp. zo.o. Bulletin No. E/62.018/2005, dated November 30, 2005.May I Request an Alternative Method of Compliance?

(f) You may request a different method of compliance or a different compliance time for this AD by following the procedures in 14 CFR 39.19. Unless FAA authorizes otherwise, send your request to your principal inspector. The principal inspector may add comments and will send your request to the Manager, Standards Office, Small Airplane Directorate, FAA. For information on any already approved alternative methods of compliance, contact Doug Rudolph, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: (816) 329-4059; facsimile: (816) 329-4090.

May I Reposition or Obtain a Special Flight Permit for the Requirements of this AD?

(g) No. After February 24, 2006 (the effective date of this AD), you may not operate the airplane to return/position the airplane to a home base, hangar, maintenance facility, or other location for the purpose of meeting the initial inspection requirements of paragraph (e)(1) of this AD. Special flight permits are prohibited for the purpose of meeting the replacement or reinforcement requirements of paragraphs (e)(2)(i) or (e)(2)(ii) of this AD. The condition is of the nature that continued flight past the effective date of this AD could severely jeopardize safety of flight.

Is There Other Information That Relates to This Subject?

(h) EASA AD Number 2006-0011-E, dated January 12, 2006, also addresses the subject of this AD.

Does This AD Incorporate Any Material by Reference?

(i) You must do the actions required by this AD following the instructions in Polskie Zaklady Lotnicze Sp. zo.o. Bulletin No. E/62.018/2005, dated November 30, 2005. The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of this service bulletin in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To get a copy of this service information, contact Polskie Zaklady Lotnicze Sp. zo.o., ul. Wojska Polskiego 3, 39-300 Mielec, Poland; telephone: 48 17 788 7440; facsimile: 48 17 788 7226. To review copies of this service information, go to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html or call (202) 741-6030. To view the AD docket, go to the Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-001 or on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov. The docket number is Docket No. FAA-2006-23733; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-09-AD.

The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the drawbridge operation regulations governing the operation of the Amtrak Bridge at mile 0.0, across the Niantic River, at Niantic, Connecticut. This deviation allows the bridge owner to require an advance notice for bridge openings from February 3, 2006 through April 3, 2006. This deviation is necessary in order to facilitate emergency unscheduled bridge maintenance.

DATES:

This deviation is effective from February 3, 2006 through April 3, 2006.

ADDRESSES:

Materials referred to in this document are available for inspection or copying at Commander (dpb) First Coast Guard District, 408 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts, 02110, between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (617) 223-8364. The Commander (dpb), First Coast Guard District, maintains the public docket for this temporary deviation.

The Amtrak Bridge has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 11 feet at mean high water and 14 feet at mean low water. The existing drawbridge operating regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.215(a).

The owner of the bridge, National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), requested a temporary deviation from the drawbridge operating regulations to facilitate the emergency replacement of the bridge control system, after informing the Coast Guard of this emergency on January 12, 2006. The bridge will not be able to open on signal for vessel traffic during the performance of this scheduled maintenance.

The bridge owner did not provide the required thirty-day notice to the Coast Guard for this deviation; however, in accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(b) this deviation was requested because the repairs are necessary repairs that must be performed without undue delay in order to assure the continued safe reliable operation of the bridge and prevent an unscheduled closure due to component failure.

As a result, the bridge owner has requested that mariners provide an advance notice for bridge openings to allow maintenance personnel sufficient time to manually open the bridge.

Under this temporary deviation, in effect from February 3, 2006 through April 3, 2006, the Amtrak Bridge at mile 0.0, across the Niantic River, Connecticut, shall open on signal from 5 a.m. to 10 p.m. after a one-hour notice is given and from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m., after a two-hour notice is given by calling the number posted at the bridge.

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(b), this work will be performed with all due speed in order to return the bridge to normal operation as soon as possible. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a temporary deviation from the drawbridge operation regulations governing the operation of the AMTRAK Old Saybrook-Old Lyme Bridge, across the Connecticut River at mile 3.4, at Old Lyme, Connecticut. This deviation from the regulations allows the bridge to operate on a fixed schedule for bridge openings from February 4, 2006 through March 6, 2006, and also authorizes one 12-hour and two 72-hour bridge closures. This deviation is necessary in order to facilitate scheduled bridge maintenance.

DATES:

This deviation is effective from February 4, 2006 through March 6, 2006.

ADDRESSES:

Materials referred to in this document are available for inspection or copying at the First Coast Guard District, Bridge Branch Office, 408 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts, 02110, between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (617) 223-8364. The First Coast Guard District Bridge Branch Office maintains the public docket for this temporary deviation.

The AMTRAK Old Saybrook-Old Lyme Bridge, at mile 3.4, across the Connecticut River has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 19 feet at mean high water and 22 feet at mean low water. The existing drawbridge operation regulations are listed at 33 CFR 117.205(b).

The owner of the bridge, National Railroad Passenger Corporation (AMTRAK), requested a temporary deviation from the drawbridge operating regulations to facilitate scheduled electrical and mechanical bridge repairs. In order to prosecute the above repairs the bridge must open on a fixed bridge opening schedule.

This deviation from the operating regulations allows the AMTRAK Old Saybrook-Old Lyme Bridge to operate from February 4, 2006 through March 6, 2006, as follows:

From Monday through Friday, the bridge shall open on signal at 8:15 a.m., 12:15 p.m., and 2:15 p.m.

On Saturday and Sunday the bridge shall open on signal at 8 a.m., 10 a.m., 1 p.m., and 4 p.m.

The bridge shall open on signal for all vessel traffic from 4 p.m. through 8 a.m. after a four-hour advance notice is given by calling the number posted at the bridge.

The bridge shall open on signal for commercial vessels at any time after a four-hour advance notice is given by calling the number posted at the bridge.

In addition, the bridge may remain in the closed position for all vessels from 7 a.m. through 7 p.m. on February 6, 2006 from 12:01 a.m. February 11, through 11:59 p.m. February 13, 2006 and 12:01 a.m. February 18 through 11:59 p.m. February 20, 2006.

This temporary deviation does not affect the operation of the CONRAIL Middletown-Portland Bridge, mile 32.0, across the Connecticut River, which is also listed under 33 CFR § 117.205(b).

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c), this work will be performed with all due speed in order to return the bridge to normal operation as soon as possible. This deviation from the operating regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for installing the West Third Street Bridge on the Cuyahoga River. The safety zone is limited to the area surrounding the bridge span during the installment process. The safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of those working on the bridge. All other portions of the Cuyahoga River are unaffected. If the installment process is completed ahead of schedule this safety zone will be canceled immediately and notices made to the public by means of Local Notice to Mariners Broadcasts.

DATES:

This rule is effective from 7 a.m. (local) Wednesday, February 1, 2006 through 1 p.m. (local) on Tuesday, February 28, 2006.

ADDRESSES:

Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are parts of docket [CGD09-06-002] and are available for inspection or copying at the U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Cleveland, 1055 East Ninth Street, Cleveland, Ohio 44114, between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

We did not publish a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this regulation. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM. The timing of this construction evolution did not allow sufficient time for the publication of an NPRM followed by an effective date before the event. Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying this rule would be contrary to the public interest of ensuring the safety of work crews, vessels and the general public during this event, and immediate action is necessary to prevent possible loss of life or property.

Background and Purpose

This safety zone is necessary and intended to manage vessel traffic in order to provide for the safety of life and property on the Cuyahoga River during the West Third Street Bridge Replacement process. The Captain of the Port has determined that this evolution poses a threat to vessel operators due to the navigational risks associated with the replacement process. The Captain of the Port has determined that vessels operating in close proximity to the tug and barge replacing the bridge span pose a risk to safety and property.

Regulatory Evaluation

This rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this rule under that Order. It is not “significant” under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

We expect the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10(e) of the regulatory policies and procedures of DHS is unnecessary.

This determination is based on the time that the safety zone will be in effect, schedules from the Great Lakes Commercial Shipping Agents, and that advance notice will be made to the maritime community via Local Notice to Mariners and marine safety information broadcasts. This regulation is tailored to impose a minimal impact on maritime interests without compromising safety.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of commercial vessels intending to transit a portion of the activated safety zone.

This safety zone would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The U.S. Coast Guard has made agreements between the Lake Carriers Association, Canadian Steamship Association and the local businesses so as not to interrupt commerce. All parties mentioned agree that this safety zone will not impede commerce. Businesses affected are not planning on receiving any goods during this period from commercial vessels. All navigable waters above and below the safety zone are open to navigation. Before the activation of the safety zone, the Coast Guard will issue maritime advisories available to users who may be impacted through Local Notice to Mariners, facsimile, and marine safety information broadcasts. Additionally, the Coast Guard has not received any reports from small entities that will be negatively affected.

If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding this rule so that they can better evaluate its effects and participate in the rulemaking process. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact Marine Safety Office Cleveland (see ADDRESSES).

Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247).

Collection of Information

This rule would call for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

This rule would not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not concern an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a “significant energy action” under that order because it is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedure; and related management system practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies.

This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

We have analyzed this rule under Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, which guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that there are no factors in this case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2. of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g) of the Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, from further environmental documentation.

A preliminary “Environmental Analysis Check List” is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final decision on whether the rule should be categorically excluded from further review.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority:

(c) Regulations. Entry into, transit through or anchoring within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative. The Coast Guard may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

Today's rule extends certain compliance dates in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting requirements and Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards (ELGs) for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in conjunction with EPA's efforts to respond to the order issued by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Waterkeeper Alliance et al. v. EPA, 399 F.3d 486 (2nd Cir. 2005). The purpose of today's rule is to address timing issues associated with the Agency's response to the Waterkeeper decision.

This final rule revises dates established in the 2003 CAFO rule, issued on February 12, 2003, by which facilities newly defined as CAFOs were required to seek permit coverage and by which all CAFOs were required to have nutrient management plans (NMPs) developed and implemented. EPA is extending the date by which operations defined as CAFOs as of April 14, 2003, who were not defined as CAFOs prior to that date, must seek NPDES permit coverage, from February 13, 2006, to July 31, 2007. EPA is also amending the date by which operations that become defined as CAFOs after April 14, 2003, due to operational changes that would not have made them a CAFO prior to April 14, 2003, and that are not new sources, must seek NPDES permit coverage, from April 13, 2006, to July 31, 2007. Finally, EPA is extending the deadline by which CAFOs are required to develop and implement NMPs, from December 31, 2006, to July 31, 2007. This rule revises all references to the date by which NMPs must be developed and implemented currently in the 2003 CAFO rule.

DATES:

This rule is effective as of February 10, 2006.

ADDRESSES:

EPA established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-OW-2005-0036. This is where you can obtain a copy of all materials related to this rulemaking, including the comment response document and the rule. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Water Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Water Docket is (202) 566-2426.

This action applies to concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) as defined in section 502(14) of the Clean Water Act and in the NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.23. The following table provides a list of standard industrial codes and analogous North American industry codes for operations covered under this revised rule:

Table 1.—Entities Potentially Regulated by This RuleCategoryExamples of regulated entitiesNorth American industry code

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your facility is regulated under this rulemaking, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 122.23. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

II. Background A. The Clean Water Act

Congress passed the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (1972), also known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters” (33 U.S.C. 1251(a)). Among the core provisions, the CWA establishes the NPDES permit program to authorize and regulate the discharge of pollutants from point sources to waters of the U.S. 33 U.S.C. 1342. Section 502(14) of the CWA specifically includes CAFOs in the definition of the term “point source.” Section 502(12) defines the term “discharge of a pollutant” to mean “any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source.” EPA has issued comprehensive regulations that implement the NPDES program at 40 CFR part 122. The Act also provides for the development of technology-based and water quality-based effluent limitations that are imposed through NPDES permits to control the discharge of pollutants from point sources. CWA section 301(a) and (b).

B. History of Actions To Address CAFOs Under the NPDES Permitting Program

EPA's regulation of wastewater and manure from CAFOs dates to the 1970s. EPA initially issued national effluent limitations guidelines and standards for feedlots on February 14, 1974 (39 FR 5704), and NPDES CAFO regulations on March 18, 1976 (41 FR 11458).

In February 2003, EPA issued revisions to these regulations that focused on the 5% of the nation's animal feeding operations (AFOs) that presented the highest risk of impairing water quality and public health (68 FR 7176) (the “2003 CAFO rule”). The 2003 CAFO rule required the owner or operators of all CAFOs 1 to seek coverage under an NPDES permit. CAFO industry organizations (American Farm Bureau Federation, National Pork Producers Council, National Chicken Council, and National Turkey Federation (NTF), although NTF later withdrew its petition) and environmental groups (Waterkeeper Alliance, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and American Littoral Society) filed petitions for judicial review of certain aspects of the 2003 CAFO rule. This case was brought before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On February 28, 2005, the court ruled on these petitions and upheld most provisions of the 2003 rule but vacated and remanded others. Waterkeeper Alliance et al. v. EPA, 399 F.3d 486 (2nd Cir. 2005) (hereafter referred to as Waterkeeper).

1 The Clean Water Act regulates the conduct of persons, which includes the owners and operators of CAFOs, rather than the facilities or their discharges. To improve readability in this preamble, reference is made to “CAFOs” as well as “owners and operators of CAFOs.” No change in meaning is intended.

C. Status of EPA's Response to the Waterkeeper Decision

EPA is developing a rulemaking to respond to the vacatures and remands in the Waterkeeper decision. EPA plans to issue a proposed rulemaking for public comment in mid 2006 and a final rulemaking as expeditiously as possible. Among other revisions related to the court's decision the Agency plans to address in the forthcoming rulemaking are those that establish which CAFOs must seek permit coverage and procedures for development and implementation of nutrient management plans (NMPs).

D. Proposed Rule

On December 21, 2005, EPA proposed to revise each of the compliance dates in the 2003 CAFO rule that were affected by the Agency's need to respond to the Waterkeeper decision. 70 FR 75771 (December 21, 2005). The 2003 CAFO rule required all newly defined CAFOs, as of the date of the final rule, and some new dischargers to seek permit coverage by February 13, 2006, or April 13, 2006, respectively. The rule also required all CAFOs to develop and implement an NMP by December 31, 2006. EPA proposed to revise these dates in a separate, limited rulemaking, prior to the Agency's response to the Waterkeeper decision, in order: (1) To provide the Agency sufficient time to take final action on the regulatory revisions it plans to propose in the near future with respect to the Second Circuit's decision; and (2) to require NMPs to be submitted at the time of the permit application, consistent with the court's decision.

III. Today's Final Rule A. Today's Final Action

Today's final rule extends certain dates for compliance specified in the 2003 CAFO rule. EPA is extending the dates for newly defined CAFOs to seek NPDES permit coverage and the date by which all CAFOs must develop and implement NMPs. Because EPA will not have completed the rulemaking responding to the Waterkeeper decision prior to the dates by which newly defined CAFOs must seek permit coverage, the Agency is revising these dates to a time that is subsequent to the forthcoming CAFO rule revision.

Today's rule is simply a means of avoiding conflict with existing deadlines that precede EPA's upcoming revisions to the 2003 rules. Today's rule does not, for example, address issues associated with the court's vacature of the requirement that all CAFOs seek coverage under an NPDES permit. That issue and other related issues, such as those associated with the development and implementation of nutrient management plans (NMPs) will be addressed in the separate forthcoming rulemaking.

1. Application Deadline for Newly Defined CAFOs

EPA is extending the date by which operations defined as CAFOs as of April 14, 2003, that were not defined as CAFOs prior to that date, must seek NPDES permit coverage, from February 13, 2006, to July 31, 2007. EPA is also proposing to amend the date by which operations that become defined as CAFOs after April 14, 2003, due to operational changes that would not have made them a CAFO prior to April 14, 2003, and that are not new sources, must seek NPDES permit coverage, from April 13, 2006, to July 31, 2007.

Today's rule does not affect the applicable time for seeking permit coverage for new source CAFOs that discharge or propose to discharge, even those in categories that were added to the definition of a CAFO in the 2003 CAFO rule. New source CAFOs that discharge or propose to discharge are required by the 2003 CAFO rule to seek NPDES permit coverage at least 180 days prior to the time that they commence operating.

Nor does today's rule affect requirements for newly defined CAFOs to obtain permit coverage in States that do not revise the deadlines in their current regulations. States may choose to require CAFOs to obtain NPDES permits in advance of the dates set in the federal NPDES regulations, pursuant to the authority reserved to States under Section 510 of the Clean Water Act to adopt requirements more stringent than those that apply under federal law. Furthermore, many CAFOs are already permitted and the extension of the deadline for requesting NPDES permit coverage does not apply to CAFOs that existed prior to the effective date of the 2003 CAFO rule and as such were required to seek NPDES permit coverage even before EPA issued the 2003 CAFO rule.

2. Deadline for Nutrient Management Plans

EPA is extending the deadline by which permitted CAFOs are required to develop and implement NMPs, from December 31, 2006, to July 31, 2007. This revises all references to the date by which NMPs must be developed and implemented currently in the 2003 CAFO rule. Thus the deadlines established in 40 CFR 122.21(i)(1)(x), 122.42(e)(1), 412.31(b)(3), and 412.43(b)(2) are all revised accordingly.

Today's rule extending deadlines for nutrient management plans would not affect CAFOs operating under existing permits so long as those permits remain in effect. If their existing permits require development and implementation of an NMP, currently permitted CAFOs must develop and implement their NMPs in accordance with the terms of their current permit.

B. Rationale for Today's Action

In December 2005, EPA proposed to extend the dates that EPA is today revising for certain CAFOs to seek NPDES permit coverage and for CAFOs to develop and implement NMPs to March 30, 2007. At the time of the proposed rule, EPA believed that setting the revised dates to March 30, 2007, would allow sufficient time for the Agency to complete the forthcoming rule to address the Waterkeeper decision. In proposing these date changes, EPA also reasoned that the rationales for these revised dates were generally consistent with the rationales that the Agency had originally relied upon in setting the compliance dates in the 2003 CAFO rule and that these dates would ensure compliance with the NPDES regulations applicable to CAFO owners and operators within a reasonable timeframe consistent with the dates established in the 2003 rule.

EPA received a number of comments on the proposed rule, including comments from States, industry, agricultural trade associations, and environmental groups. Some commenters asserted that the proposed rule is not consistent with the part of the court's decision that vacated the “duty to apply” provision of the 2003 regulations. The “duty to apply” provision required all CAFOs to apply for a permit, including those with only a potential to discharge. Commenters maintained that the language of the proposed rule was not appropriate because it continued to follow the approach in the 2003 CAFO regulations, under which all CAFOs must have or seek a permit.

In response, EPA reiterates that it will address the various aspects of the court's Waterkeeper decision, including the court's ruling on the “duty to apply” issue, in a forthcoming rulemaking. That rulemaking will address the regulations on who must apply for a permit in order to conform those regulations to the court's ruling. Nothing in today's rule affects or otherwise addresses the issue of who must apply for a permit. Today's rule only shifts the deadline for when a permit application must be submitted by those CAFOs that are required to apply. As a sequence of events, EPA expects that its upcoming rulemaking to respond to Waterkeeper will change the universe of who must apply for a permit and that those regulations will be finalized and effective before the new deadline of July 31, 2007, promulgated in today's rule for permit applications. As a result, only those CAFOs that are required to apply for a permit—as redefined in the upcoming rulemaking—will be subject to the permit application deadlines in today's rule. EPA notes in particular that today's rule is not intended to, and does not, have the effect of requiring all CAFOs to apply for a permit by the new deadlines in today's rule.

Some commenters asserted that the proposed deadlines would not offer CAFOs sufficient time to submit permit applications that will comply with the regulatory revisions the Agency is planning to address in its response to the Waterkeeper decision. These commenters noted that the proposed March 30, 2007, permit application deadline will not provide EPA sufficient time to propose and take final action on such regulatory revisions in time for CAFOs to apply for permits by that date.

EPA is revising its proposal to extend the date from March 30, 2007, to July 31, 2007, to provide sufficient time for the Agency to promulgate regulations addressing the Waterkeeper decision. EPA intends to propose such regulations in mid 2006 and to take final action on that proposal as soon as possible thereafter, so that affected CAFOs will have sufficient time to comply with revised regulations after they take effect. In addition, EPA notes that most of the technical provisions of the 2003 CAFO rule (e.g., the substantive NMP requirements) were unaffected by the Waterkeeper decision, and therefore CAFOs do have some information at this time to assess the actions they will need to take. Should the Agency decide that a further extension of time is necessary to allow CAFOs an adequate opportunity to meet the requirements of the revised regulations, EPA could allow a further extension in the final rule.

Commenters also raised issues about the way in which the proposed rule failed to separate the date by which an NMP needs to be developed from the date when the CAFO must implement the NMP. Commenters expressed the view that keeping the dates together was inconsistent with the Waterkeeper court's decision to require NMPs to be publicly reviewed and the terms of the NMP to be included as conditions in a CAFO's permit before they could be implemented, as such. As discussed above, EPA is developing a rule to address the court's decision regarding public and permitting authority review and the inclusion of NMPs in permits and will issue the proposed rule in mid 2006 and the final rule as soon as possible thereafter. That rule will address issues raised by the commenters in that rulemaking and it is premature to resolve them now. Should further revisions to the deadlines for development and implementation be necessary to address these concerns, the Agency could further modify the dates in the final rule.

Several commenters expressed the view that EPA needed to take into consideration the time necessary for States to make conforming revisions to State programs following EPA's regulatory revisions. While EPA agrees that States need additional time to modify their programs once EPA has finalized its regulatory revisions in response to the Waterkeeper decision, the Agency does not believe that these concerns justify further extension of the compliance dates in today's rule. EPA is committed to work with States and other interested parties to work through the procedural challenges and resolve any difficulties that may arise in the implementation of the regulatory revisions.

IV. Effective Date of These Actions

EPA is making this rule immediately effective upon the date of publication. The immediate effective date for this action is authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rulemaking actions may become effective less than 30 days after publication if the rule “grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction” and section 553(d)(3) which allows an effective date less than 30 days after publication “as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found and published with the rule.” EPA finds that there is good cause to make the rule effective immediately. The 2003 CAFO rule requires some CAFOs to seek NPDES permit coverage and prepare and implement nutrient management plans in 2006 well before EPA regulations will be in place to respond to the Waterkeeper's decision. Making this rule immediately effective is consistent with the purpose of the good cause exemption which is to provide reasonable time for affected parties to comply. A delayed effective date is not necessary because affected parties do not have to take any action to comply with this rule which simply extends deadlines for seeking NPDES permit coverage and preparing and implementing nutrient management plans. In addition, consistent with section 553(d)(3), an immediate effective date is justified because this rule relieves certain CAFOs of obligations which would otherwise apply to them, to seek NPDES permit coverage and develop and implement nutrient management plans in 2006.

Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735; October 4, 1993), the Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is “significant” and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines “significant regulatory action” as one that is likely to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

It has been determined that this rule is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, is not subject to OMB review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. As discussed above, the purpose of today's rule is solely to address timing issues associated with the Agency's response to the Waterkeeper court ruling based on litigation ensuing from the 2003 CAFO rule. However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations at 40 CFR parts 9, 122, 123, and 412 under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2040-0250. The EPA ICR number for the original set of regulations is 1989.02. A copy of the OMB approved Information Collection Request (ICR) may be obtained from Susan Auby, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 566-1672.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business based on Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

This action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities since the effect of the rule is solely to extend certain deadlines related to NPDES CAFO permitting. Additionally, this rule would not affect small governments, as the permitting authorities are State or Federal agencies.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of UMRA generally requires EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and to adopt the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

EPA determined that this rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. As discussed above, the purpose of today's rule is solely to address timing issues associated with the Agency's response to the Waterkeeper court ruling based on litigation ensuing from the 2003 CAFO rule.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”

Under section 6(b) of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. Under section 6(c) of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.

EPA has concluded that this rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. EPA does not consider an annual impact of $2 million on States to be a substantial effect. In addition, EPA does not expect this rule to have any impact on local governments.

Further, the revised regulations do not alter the basic State-Federal scheme established in the Clean Water Act under which EPA authorizes States to carry out the NPDES permitting program. EPA expects the revised regulations to have little effect on the relationship between, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among, the Federal and State governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

Executive Order 13175, entitled, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249; November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.”

This regulation does not have tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and tribal governments, EPA specifically solicited additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045: “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be “economically significant” as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.

This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined under E.O. 12866, and because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health and safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. The benefits analysis performed for the 2003 CAFO rule determined that the rule would result in certain significant benefits to children's health. (Please refer to the Benefits Analysis in the record for the 2003 CAFO final rule.) Since today's action would not affect the environmental benefits of the rule, these benefits are retained.

This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Pub. L. 104-113, Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

This final rule does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective February 10, 2006.

(1) Operations defined as CAFOs as of April 14, 2003, who were not defined as CAFOs prior to that date. For all CAFOs, the owner or operator of the CAFO must seek to obtain coverage under an NPDES permit by a date specified by the Director, but no later than July 31, 2007.

(3) * * *

(iii) If an operational change that makes the operation a CAFO would not have made it a CAFO prior to April 14, 2003, the operation has until July 31, 2007, or 90 days after becoming defined as a CAFO, whichever is later.

4. Amend § 122.42 by revising the third and fourth sentences in paragraph (e)(1) introductory text to read as follows:§ 122.42 Additional conditions applicable to specified categories of NPDES permits (applicable to State NPDES programs, see § 123.25).

(e) * * *

(1) * * * Permitted CAFOs must have their nutrient management plans developed and implemented by July 31, 2007. CAFOs that seek to obtain coverage under a permit after July 31, 2007, must have a nutrient management plan developed and implemented upon the date of permit coverage. * * *

PART 412—CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS (CAFO) POINT SOURCE CATEGORY5. The authority citation for part 412 continues to read as follows:Authority:

33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342, 1361.

6. Amend § 412.31 by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:§ 412.31 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

(b) * * *

(3) The CAFO shall attain the limitations and requirements of this paragraph by July 31, 2007.

7. Amend § 412.43 by revising paragraph (b)(2) to read as follows:§ 412.43 Effluent limitations attainable by the application of the best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).

(b) * * *

(2) The CAFO shall attain the limitations and requirements of this paragraph by July 31, 2007.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:

Temporary rule; landing limit.

SUMMARY:

NMFS announces that the Administrator, Northeast (NE) Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), is implementing a yellowtail flounder trip limit of 1,500 lb (680.4 kg) per day, up to a maximum of 15,000 lb (6,804.1 kg) per trip, for NE multispecies Days-at-Sea (DAS) vessels fishing in both the Western and Eastern U.S./Canada Areas. This action is required by the regulations enacting Amendment 13 to the NE Multispecies Fishery Management Plan and is necessary to prevent the GB yellowtail flounder total allowable catch (TAC) from being caught before the end of the 2005 fishing year and to increase the likelihood that the GB yellowtail TAC will be available through the end of the 2005 fishing year on April 30, 2006. This action is being taken to slow the rate of harvest of GB yellowtail flounder under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).

DATES:

Effective 0001 hrs local time, February 9, 2006, through April 30, 2006.

Regulations governing the yellowtail flounder landing limit within the Western and Eastern U.S./Canada Areas are found at 50 CFR 648.85(a)(3)(iv)(C). The regulations authorize vessels issued a valid limited access NE multispecies permit and fishing under a NE multispecies DAS to fish in the U.S./Canada Management Area, as defined at § 648.85(a)(1), under specific conditions. The TAC for GB yellowtail flounder for the 2005 fishing year is 4,260 mt. When 70 percent (2,982 mt) of the GB yellowtail flounder TAC is projected to be harvested, the regulations at § 648.85(a)(3)(iv)(C)(2) require the Regional Administrator to implement and/or adjust the yellowtail flounder landing limit for NE multispecies vessels fishing in both the Western and Eastern U.S./Canada Areas to 1,500 lb (680.4 kg) per day, and 15,000 lb (6,804.1 kg) per trip.

When approximately 59 percent of the GB yellowtail flounder TAC was harvested, NMFS implemented a yellowtail flounder landing limit of 15,000 lb (6,804.1 kg) per trip to slow the rate of catch for this stock (December 22, 2005; 70 FR 75965). Based upon Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) reports and other available information, the Regional Administrator has determined that 70 percent (2,982 mt) of the GB yellowtail flounder TAC of 4,260 mt will be harvested by February 8, 2006. Based on this information, the Regional Administrator is reducing the GB yellowtail trip limit from 15,000 lb (6,804.1 kg) per trip to 1,500 lb (680.4 kg) per day, up to a maximum of 15,000 lb (6,804.1 kg) per trip, for NE multispecies DAS vessels fishing in both the Western and Eastern U.S./Canada Areas trip, effective February 8, 2006, through April 30, 2006. Vessels that have already declared their intent to fish in the Western U.S./Canada Area through VMS, departed on a trip, and crossed the demarcation line as of 0001 hours on February 8, 2006, may possess and land up to 15,000 lb (6,804.1 kg) of GB yellowtail flounder, regardless of the length of their trip.

Classification

This action is required by 50 CFR part 648 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Assistant Administrator finds good cause to waive prior notice and opportunity for public comment for this action, because notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The regulations at § 648.85(a)(3)(iv)(C)(2) require the Regional Administrator to implement and/or adjust the yellowtail flounder landing limit for NE multispecies vessels fishing in both the Western and Eastern U.S./Canada Areas to 1,500 lb (680.4 kg) per day, and 15,000 lb (6,804.1 kg) per trip when 70 percent (2,982 mt) of the GB yellowtail flounder TAC is projected to be harvested. Based upon VMS reports and other available information, the Regional Administrator has determined that 70 percent (2,980 mt) of the GB yellowtail flounder TAC of 4,260 mt will be harvested by February 8, 2006. Therefore, this action is non-discretionary. In addition, there exists insufficient time to allow for public notice and comment before 70 percent of the TAC will be harvested.

Given the rapidly increasing harvest rate and the reduced GB yellowtail flounder TAC specified for 2005, the time necessary to provide for prior notice and opportunity for public comment would prevent the agency from ensuring that the 2005 TAC for GB yellowtail flounder is not exceeded during the 2005 fishing year. It was not possible to take this action earlier to provide more time for public comment because of how quickly the GB yellowtail flounder was harvested, the rapidly increasing harvest rate, the reduced GB yellowtail flounder TAC, and the ability of NMFS to monitor the harvest (the projection that 70 percent of the GB yellowtail TAC would be harvested by February 8, 2006, was not available until February 3, 2006).

Exceeding the 2005 TAC for GB yellowtail flounder would increase mortality of this overfished stock beyond that evaluated during the development of Amendment 13, potentially undermining the rebuilding efforts for this stock. Moreover, should the GB yellowtail flounder TAC be exceeded, any overages would be deducted from the 2006 GB yellowtail flounder TAC. This would result in decreased revenue for the NE multispecies fishery, increased economic impacts to vessels operating in the Western and Eastern U.S./Canada Areas, reduced opportunities to fully harvest the GB haddock and GB cod TAC's in the Eastern U.S./Canada Area (i.e., through the increased possibility of premature closure of the Eastern U.S./Canada Area during the 2006 fishing year due to fully harvesting a reduced GB yellowtail flounder TAC in 2006), a reduced chance of achieving optimum yield in the groundfish fishery, and unnecessary delays to the rebuilding of this overfished stock.

For similar reasons there is good cause, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), to waive the entire 30-day delayed effectiveness period for this action. For the reasons specified above, a delay in the effectiveness of the trip limit modification in this rule would prevent the agency from meeting its management obligation and ensuring that the 2005 catch TAC for GB yellowtail flounder specified for the Western and Eastern U.S./Canada Areas would not be exceeded during the 2005 fishing year. Any such delay could lead to the impacts to the fishing industry described above.

The rate of harvest of the GB yellowtail flounder TAC in the Western and Eastern U.S./Canada Areas is updated weekly on the internet at http://www.nero.noaa.gov. Accordingly, the public is able to obtain information that would provide at least some advanced notice of a potential action to prevent the TAC for GB yellowtail flounder from being exceeded during the 2005 fishing year. Further, the potential for this action was considered and open to public comment during the development of Amendment 13. Therefore, any negative effect the waiving of public comment and delayed effectiveness may have on the public is mitigated by these factors.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:

Temporary rule; reallocation.

SUMMARY:

NMFS is reallocating the projected unused amounts of Community Development Quota (CDQ) pollock from the Aleutian Islands subarea to the Bering Sea subarea. This action is necessary to allow the 2006 total allowable catch (TAC) of pollock in the Aleutian Islands subarea to be harvested in the Bering Sea subarea.

DATES:

Effective February 10, 2006, through 2400 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), December 31, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Josh Keaton, 907-586-7228.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.

In the Aleutian Islands subarea, the 2006 A season allowance of CDQ pollock is 760 mt as established by the 2005 and 2006 final harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (70 FR 8979, February 24, 2005), for the period 1200 hrs, A.l.t., January 1, 2006, through 1200 hrs, A.l.t., June 10, 2006.

As of January 26, 2006, the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS, (Regional Administrator) has determined that 760 mt of A season CDQ pollock will not be harvested. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B)(4), NMFS reallocates 760 mt of CDQ pollock from the Aleutian Islands subarea to the Bering Sea subarea A season allocation.

Furthermore, the Regional Administrator has determined through consultation with the CDQ groups that 1,140 mt of the B season CDQ pollock allocations in the Aleutian Islands subarea will not be harvested. Therefore, in accordance with § 679.20(a)(5)(iii)(B)(4), NMFS reallocates 1,140 mt of CDQ pollock from the Aleutian Islands subarea to the Bering Sea subarea B season allocation. Table 3 has been revised to reflect this reallocation.

The harvest specifications for pollock in the Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea subarea included in the harvest specifications for groundfish in the BSAI (70 FR 8979, February 24, 2005) are revised as follows: 0 mt to the A season allowance of CDQ pollock in the Aleutian Islands subarea, 0 mt to the B season allowance of CDQ pollock in the Aleutian Islands subarea, 60,270 mt to the A season allowance of CDQ pollock in the Bering Sea subarea, and 90,406 mt to the B season allowance of CDQ pollock in the Bering Sea subarea.

Classification

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the reallocation of Aleutian Islands subarea pollock to the Bering Sea subarea A season. At the end of January 2006, NMFS was notified by the CDQ groups that the pollock allocations in the Aleutian Islands subarea will not be harvested. Since the A season is currently open, it is important to immediately inform the industry as to the final Bering Sea subarea A season allocations. Immediate notification is necessary in order to allow for the orderly conduct and efficient operation of this fishery thereby allowing the industry to plan for the fishing season and avoid potential disruption to the fishing fleet as well as processors.

The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

This action is required by § 679.20 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:

Temporary rule; opening.

SUMMARY:

NMFS is opening directed fishing for sablefish with fixed gear managed under the Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) Program. The season will open 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), March 5, 2006, and will close 1200 hrs, A.l.t., November 15, 2006. This period is the same as the 2006 IFQ and Community Development Quota season for Pacific halibut adopted by the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC). The IFQ halibut season is specified by a separate publication in the Federal Register of annual management measures.

Beginning in 1995, fishing for Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis) and sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) with fixed gear in the IFQ regulatory areas defined in § 679.2 has been managed under the IFQ Program. The IFQ Program is a regulatory regime designed to promote the conservation and management of these fisheries and to further the objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the Northern Pacific Halibut Act. Persons holding quota share receive an annual allocation of IFQ. Persons receiving an annual allocation of IFQ are authorized to harvest IFQ species within specified limitations. Further information on the implementation of the IFQ Program, and the rationale supporting it, are contained in the preamble to the final rule implementing the IFQ Program published in the Federal Register, November 9, 1993 (58 FR 59375) and subsequent amendments.

This announcement is consistent with § 679.23(g)(1), which requires that the directed fishing season for sablefish managed under the IFQ Program be specified by the Administrator, Alaska Region, and announced by publication in the Federal Register. This method of season announcement was selected to facilitate coordination between the sablefish season, chosen by the Administrator, Alaska Region, and the halibut season, chosen by the IPHC. The directed fishing season for sablefish with fixed gear managed under the IFQ Program will open 1200 hrs, A.l.t., March 5, 2006, and will close 1200 hrs, A.l.t., November 15, 2006. This period runs concurrently with the IFQ season for Pacific halibut announced by the IPHC. The IFQ halibut season will be specified by a separate publication in the Federal Register of annual management measures pursuant to 50 CFR 300.62.

Classification

This action responds to the best available information recently obtained from the fishery. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, (AA), finds good cause to waive the requirement to provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment pursuant to the authority set forth at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) as such requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This requirement is impracticable and contrary to the public interest as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the opening of the sablefish fishery thereby increasing bycatch and regulatory discards between the sablefish fishery and the halibut fishery, and preventing the accomplishment of the management objective for simultaneous opening of these two fisheries.

The AA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.

This action is required by § 679.23 and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.

EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Kentucky State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the Commonwealth of Kentucky on September 2, 2004. The proposed revisions modify Kentucky's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) regulations in the SIP to address changes to the federal NSR regulations, which were promulgated by EPA on December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186) and reconsidered with minor changes on November 7, 2003 (68 FR 63021) (collectively, these two final actions are called the “2002 NSR Reform Rules”). Together, the PSD and NNSR programs are commonly referred to as the “NSR programs.” EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules, proposed for inclusion in the Kentucky SIP, include provisions for baseline emissions calculations, an actual-to-projected-actual methodology for calculating emissions changes, options for plantwide applicability limits, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and a significance threshold for ozone depleting substances.

DATES:

Comments must be received on or before March 13, 2006.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2004-KY-0004, by one of the following methods:

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2004-KY-0004. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.

Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information the disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides & Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official business hours are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.

Throughout this document, references to “EPA,” “we,” “us,” or “our,” are intended to mean the Environmental Protection Agency. The supplementary information is arranged as follows:

I. What Action Is EPA Proposing to Take?II. What is the Background for this Action?III. What is EPA's Analysis of Kentucky's NSR Rule Revisions?a. Definitions for Chapter 51; 401 KAR 51:001B. Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality; 401 KAR 51:017C. Review of New Sources in or Impacting Upon Nonattainment Areas; 401 KAR 51:052IV. What Action is EPA Taking Today?V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.I. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take?

On September 2, 2004, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, through the Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection (KDEP), submitted revisions to the Kentucky State Implementation Plan (SIP). The submittal consists of revisions to three regulations that are already part of the Kentucky SIP. The affected regulations are: 401 Kentucky Administrative Regulations (KAR) 51:001, “Definitions for 401 KAR Chapter 51;” 401 KAR 51:017, “Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality;” and 401 KAR 51:052, “Review of New Sources in or Impacting upon Nonattainment Areas.” The revisions were made to update the Kentucky NSR programs to make them consistent with changes to the Federal NSR regulations published on December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186) and November 7, 2003 (68 FR 63021). These two EPA rulemakings are commonly referred to as the “2002 NSR Reform Rules.”

In a letter to EPA dated August 23, 2005, Kentucky requested to amend the September 2, 2004, SIP submittal in light of the decision issued by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (DC Circuit Court) on June 24, 2005. The June 24, 2005, decision is discussed in further detail below. Kentucky requested that the portion of the Kentucky SIP revision related to the EPA rules that were vacated by the DC Circuit Court not be approved into the SIP, namely Sections 20, 21, and 22 of 401 KAR 51:017, Sections 11, 12, and 13 of 401 KAR 51:052, and definitions (38) and (188) in Section 1 of 401 KAR 51:001. EPA is therefore now proposing to approve the SIP submitted by KDEP on September 2, 2004, as amended on August 23, 2005.

II. What Is the Background for This Action?

On December 31, 2002, EPA published final rule changes to 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 51 and 52, regarding the Clean Air Act's PSD and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) programs. 67 FR 80186. On November 7, 2003, EPA published a notice of final action on the reconsideration of the December 31, 2002 final rule changes. 68 FR 63021. In that November 7th final action, EPA added the definition of “replacement unit,” and clarified an issue regarding plantwide applicability limitations (PALs). The December 31, 2002 and the November 7, 2003, final actions, are collectively referred to as the “2002 NSR Reform Rules.” The purpose of today's action is to propose approval of the SIP submittal from the Commonwealth of Kentucky, which includes EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules.

The 2002 NSR Reform Rules are part of EPA's implementation of Parts C and D of title I of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), 42 U.S.C. 7470-7515. Part C of title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7470-7492, is the PSD program, which applies in areas that meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)—“attainment” areas—as well as in areas for which there is insufficient information to determine whether the area meets the NAAQS—“unclassifiable” areas. Part D of title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7501-7515, is the NNSR program, which applies in areas that are not in attainment of the NAAQS—“nonattainment areas.” Collectively, the PSD and NNSR programs are referred to as the “New Source Review” or NSR programs. EPA regulations implementing these programs are contained in 40 CFR 51.165, 51.166, 52.21, 52.24, and part 51, appendix S.

The CAA's NSR programs are preconstruction review and permitting programs applicable to new and modified stationary sources of air pollutants regulated under the CAA. The NSR programs of the CAA include a combination of air quality planning and air pollution control technology program requirements. Briefly, section 109 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7409, requires EPA to promulgate primary NAAQS to protect public health and secondary NAAQS to protect public welfare. Once EPA sets those standards, states must develop, adopt, and submit to EPA for approval, a State Implementation Plan (SIP) that contains emissions limitations and other control measures to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Each SIP is required to contain a preconstruction review program for the construction and modification of any stationary source of air pollution to assure that the NAAQS are achieved and maintained; to protect areas of clean air; to protect air quality related values (such as visibility) in national parks and other areas; to assure that appropriate emissions controls are applied; to maximize opportunities for economic development consistent with the preservation of clean air resources; and to ensure that any decision to increase air pollution is made only after full public consideration of the consequences of the decision.

The 2002 NSR Reform Rules made changes to five areas of the NSR programs. In summary, the 2002 Rules: (1) Provide a new method for determining baseline actual emissions; (2) adopt an actual-to-projected-actual methodology for determining whether a major modification has occurred; (3) allow major stationary sources to comply with plant-wide applicability limits to avoid having a significant emissions increase that triggers the requirements of the major NSR program; (4) provide a new applicability provision for emissions units that are designated clean units; and (5) exclude pollution control projects (PCPs) from the definition of “physical change or change in the method of operation.” On November 7, 2003, EPA published a notice of final action on its reconsideration of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules (68 FR 63021), which added a definition for “replacement unit” and clarified an issue regarding PALs. For additional information on the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, see 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), and http://www.epa.gov/nsr.

After the 2002 NSR Reform Rules were finalized and effective (March 3, 2003), various petitioners challenged numerous aspects of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, along with portions of EPA's 1980 NSR Rules (45 FR 5276, August 7, 1980). On June 24, 2005, the DC Circuit Court issued a decision on the challenges to the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. New York v. United States, 413 F.3d 3 (DC Cir. 2005). In summary, the DC Circuit Court vacated portions of the Rules pertaining to clean units and pollution control projects, remanded a portion of the Rules regarding recordkeeping, e.g., 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6) and 40 CFR 51.166(r)(6), and either upheld or did not comment on the other provisions included as part of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. EPA has not yet responded to the Court's remand regarding the recordkeeping provisions. Today's action is consistent with the decision of the DC Circuit Court because Kentucky's submittal does not include any portions of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules that were vacated as part of the June 2005, decision.

The 2002 NSR Reform Rules require that state agencies adopt and submit revisions to their SIP permitting programs implementing the minimum program elements of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules no later than January 2, 2006. (Consistent with changes to 40 CFR 51.166(a)(6)(i), state agencies are now required to adopt and submit SIP revisions within three years after new amendments are published in the Federal Register.) State agencies may meet the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, and the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, with different but equivalent regulations. However, if a state decides not to implement any of the new applicability provisions, that state is required to demonstrate that its existing program is at least as stringent as the federal program.

On September 2, 2004, the Commonwealth of Kentucky submitted a SIP revision for the purpose of revising the Commonwealth's NSR permitting provisions. These changes were made primarily to adopt EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules. As discussed in further detail below, EPA believes the revisions contained in the Kentucky submittal are approvable for inclusion into the Kentucky SIP.

III. What Is EPA's Analysis of Kentucky's NSR Rule Revisions?

Kentucky currently has an approved NSR program for new and modified sources. Today, EPA is proposing to approve revisions to Kentucky's existing NSR program in the SIP. These proposed revisions became state-effective on July 14, 2004, and were submitted to EPA on September 2, 2004. Copies of the revised rules, as well as the State's Technical Support Document (TSD), can be obtained from the Docket, as discussed in the “Docket” section above. A discussion of the specific changes to Kentucky's rule, proposed for inclusion in the SIP, follows.

A. Definitions for 401 KAR Chapter 51; 401 KAR 51:001

Regulation 401 KAR 51:001 defines the terms used in Chapter 51 of the Kentucky Administrative Regulations. The amendments to section 51:001 provide the definitions of terms used in 401 KAR 51:017 and 401 KAR 51:052, which were changed to include the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, as discussed above. Specifically, the revisions include new or revised definitions for terms such as “actual emissions,” “actual PALs,” “allowable emissions,” “baseline actual emissions,” and “major modification.” The Kentucky definitions correspond with the federal definitions. Furthermore, the introductory paragraph of Chapter 51:001 states that the definitions “are not more stringent or otherwise different than the corresponding federal definitions.”

Kentucky's revisions to Chapter 51:017 contain a minor provision that is different from the existing federal rule found in 40 CFR 51.166(b)(23), which defines significance levels for various pollutants. Kentucky's definition of “significance” (definition 221), includes a significance threshold for ozone depleting substances (ODS) of 100 tons per year (tpy). This definition, as applied by 401 KAR 51:017, has the effect of requiring that facilities with emissions or net emissions increases greater than or equal to 100 tpy of ODS obtain a major source permit. The current Federal rule (51.166(b)(23)(ii)) does not contain a specific threshold for ODS. In 1996, however, EPA proposed a 100 tpy threshold for ODS. See 61 FR 38250, July 23, 1996. Based on the rationale provided in the 1996 proposal, EPA believes that it is reasonable for Kentucky to adopt this threshold. If EPA issues a final rule that establishes a threshold for ODS that is different from the one proposed in 1996, Kentucky will have the obligation to amend its rule. Additional information regarding significance threshold levels for ODS can be found in the Docket for this action. General information about ODS is available on the EPA Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/ozone/index.html.

EPA performed a line by line review of the Kentucky definitions and found them to be consistent with the 2002 NSR Reform Rules and other federal requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51 subpart I. Per Kentucky's request, as discussed above, EPA is not proposing to approve the definition of “clean unit” or the definition of “pollution control project” into the Kentucky SIP.

Kentucky regulation 401 KAR 51:017 contains the preconstruction review program that provides for the prevention of significant deterioration of ambient air quality as required under Part C of title I of the Clean Air Act. The program applies to major stationary sources or modifications constructing in areas that are designated as attainment or unclassifiable with respect to the NAAQS. Kentucky's PSD program was originally approved into the SIP by EPA on November 6, 1989, and has been revised several times.

The current revisions to 401 KAR 51:017, which EPA is proposing to approve into the SIP, were provided to update the existing provisions to be consistent with the current Federal PSD rules, including the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. These revisions address baseline actual emissions, actual-to projected actual applicability tests, and PALs. Definitions previously contained in this section were moved to 401 KAR 51:001, “Definitions for 401 KAR Chapter 51.” 401 KAR 51:017 does not incorporate the portions of the Federal rules that were recently vacated by the DC Circuit Court, including the clean unit provisions, the pollution control projects exclusion, and equipment replacement provision which was promulgated shortly after the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. As noted earlier, EPA has not yet responded to the DC Circuit Court's remand of the recordkeeping provisions of EPA's 2002 NSR Reform Rules. Kentucky's rule contains recordkeeping requirements that are substantially the same as the remanded Federal rule. While final action by EPA with regard to the remand may require EPA to take further action on this portion of Kentucky's rules, at this time, the rules are the same as existing Federal law.

The requirements included in Kentucky's PSD program are substantively the same as the corresponding federal provisions. The Kentucky rules have been formatted to conform to Kentucky rule drafting standards (Kentucky Revised Standards Chapter 13A), but in substantive content the rules are the same as the Federal rules. As part of its review of the Kentucky SIP submittal, EPA performed a line-by-line review of the proposed revisions and has determined that they are consistent with the program requirements for the preparation, adoption and submittal of implementation plans for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality, set forth at 40 CFR 51.166.

C. Review of New Resources in or Impacting Upon Nonattainment Areas; 401 KAR 51:052

Kentucky's permitting requirements for major sources in or impacting upon non-attainment areas are set forth at 401 KAR 51:052 (NNSR program). The Kentucky NNSR program was originally approved into the Kentucky SIP on January 25, 1980 (with subsequent amendments) and applies to the construction and modification of any major stationary source of air pollution in a nonattainment area, as required by Part D of title I of the CAA. To receive approval to construct, a source that is subject to this regulation must show that it will not cause a net increase in pollution, will not create a delay in meting the NAAQS, and that the source will install and use control technology that achieves the lowest achievable emissions rate.

The revisions to this regulation, which EPA is proposing to approve into the SIP, update the existing provisions to be consistent with the current Federal nonattainment rule, including the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. These revisions address baseline actual emissions, actual-to-projected-actual applicability tests, and PALs. Definitions previously contained in this seciton were moved to 401 KAR 51:001, “Definitions for 401 KAR Chapter 51.” The rule does not incorporate the portions of the Federal rules that were recently vacated by the DC Circuit Court, including the clean unit provisions, the pollution control projects exclusion, and the equipment replacement provision, which was promulgated shortly after the 2002 NSR Reform Rules.

The revisions included in Kentucky's NNSR program are substantively the same as the 2002 NSR Reform Rules. The Kentucky Rules have been formatted to conform to Kentucky rule drafting standards (KRS Chapter 13A), but in substantive content the rules are the same as the Federal rules. As part of its review of the Kentucky submittal, EPA performed a line-by-line review of the proposed revisions and has determined that they are consistent with the program requirements for the preparation, adoption and submittal of implementation plans for New Source Review, set forth at 40 CFR 51.165.

IV. What Action Is EPA Proposing To Take?

EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Kentucky SIP (Kentucky regulations, 401 KAR 51:01, 401 KAR 51:017, and 401 KAR 51:052) submitted by the Common wealth of Kentucky on September 2, 2004, and amended on August 23, 2005. EPA proposed to take no action on the following provisions of the Kentucky regulations, which include portions of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules that were vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court: Sections 20, 21, and 22 of 401 KAR 51:017, Sections 11, 12, and 13 of 401 KAR 51:052, and definitions (38) and (188) in Section 1 of 401 KAR 51:001.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).

This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This proposed rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clear Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

Section 1871(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act (the Act) requires us to publish a Medicare final rule no later than 3 years after the publication date of the proposed rule. This notice announces an extension of the timeline for publication of a Medicare final rule in accordance with section 1871(a)(3)(B) of the Act, which allows us to extend the timeline for publication of the “Medicare Program; Provider Bad Debt Payment” final rule under exceptional circumstances.

Dates:

Effective Date: This notice is effective on February 10, 2006.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jill Keplinger, (410) 786-4550.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On February 10, 2003 (68 FR 6682), we published a proposed rule that would revise existing regulations governing reimbursement for bad debts for all providers or entities, other than hospitals, currently eligible for bad debt reimbursement under the Medicare program. These proposed revisions were intended to provide for a consistent bad debt reimbursement policy for all providers currently eligible to receive payments from Medicare for bad debt. The proposed revisions also would remove a cap on End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) bad debt reimbursement, which limits payment of allowable bad debts to the facility's unrecovered costs. In addition, the proposed rule would clarify that bad debts are not allowable for entities paid under a reasonable-charge or fee schedule methodology.

This notice announces an extension of the timeline for publication of a final rule responding to comments on the above proposed rule. Section 1871(a)(3)(B) of the Social Security Act (the Act) requires us generally to publish a Medicare final rule no later than 3 years after the publication date of the proposed rule. To meet this 3-year timeframe, the final rule at issue here would have to be published by February 10, 2006.

Section 1871(a)(3)(B) also provides, however, that under “exceptional circumstances” the Secretary may extend the initial targeted publication date of a final regulation, if the Secretary provides public notice of this extension, including a brief explanation of the justification for the variation, no later than the regulation's previously established proposed publication date.

This notice extends the timeline based on the following exceptional circumstances, which we believe justify such an extension in this case. On February 1, 2006, the Congress completed action on final legislation (S. 1932) that affects the provisions that would be modified under the proposed rule at issue here. Section 5004 of this bill, also known as the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA), generally provides for a 30 percent reduction in bad debt reimbursement to Skilled Nursing Facilities (SNFs), but only with respect to debt attributable to non-dual eligibles. Bad debt payment for dual eligibles would remain at 100 percent. By contrast, the proposed rule applied the 30 percent reduction to all providers other than hospitals, and had no exception for debt attributable to dual-eligibles.

If we were to finalize the SNF bad debt provisions of the proposed rule at issue here before the enactment of section 5004 of the DRA, these provisions could be superseded by contrary legislation very shortly after publication. This would require a new round of rulemaking to address the impact of the new legislation. By extending the deadline for publication of a final rule, we would hope to avoid needless and duplicative rulemaking, and confusion of the public, by responding to comments on this proposed rule, and addressing the effects of section 5004 of the DRA on the proposed rule, in one rulemaking document.

In order to allow time for the President to act on the DRA, and for us to fully assess the impact of this legislation on the provisions in the proposed rule, we are extending the timeline for this rulemaking for up to one year, and intend to publish the final rule no later than February 10, 2007. As required under section 1871(a)(3)(D), we will include a discussion of this extension in a report to Congress.

In this Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making the Commission considers whether it should modify its general competitive bidding rules governing benefits reserved for designated entities (i.e., small businesses, rural telephone companies and businesses owned by women and minorities). The Commission has reached a tentative conclusion that it should modify its part 1 rules to restrict the award of designated entity benefits to an otherwise qualified designated entity where it has a material relationship with a large in-region incumbent wireless service provider,” and the Commission seeks comment on how it should define the elements of such a restriction. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should restrict the award of designated entity benefits where an otherwise qualified designated entity has a “material relationship” with a large entity that has a significant interest in communications services.

DATES:

Comments due February 24, 2006 and Reply Comments due March 3, 2006. Written comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or before April 11, 2006.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 05-211; FCC 06-8 by any of the following methods:

Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. All filings related to this Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making should refer to WT Docket No. 05-211. Comments may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or (3) by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998). The public may view a full copy of this document at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-8A1.doc.

• Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments.

• For ECFS filers, in completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions, filers should send an e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form.” A sample form and directions will be sent in response.

• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

• The Commission's contractor will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building.

• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.

• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington DC 20554.

• People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request materials in accessible formats (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format, etc.) by e-mail at fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0531 (voice), (202) 418-7365 (TTY).

Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

This document contains proposed new or modified information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due April 11, 2006. Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

OMB Control Number: 3060-0600.

Title: Application to Participate in an Auction.

Form No.: FCC Form 175.

Type of Review: Revision of currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit, not-for-profit institutions and/or state, local or tribal governments.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 560 (60 respondents for this FNPRM; 500 respondents in a previously approved submission to OMB).

Estimated Time Per Response: .166 hours-1.5 hours.

Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirement.

Estimated Total Annual Burden: 760 hours (10 hours for this FNPRM submission and 750 hours for the previous submission approved by OMB).

Estimated Total Annual Costs: N/A.

Privacy Act Impact Assessment: N/A.

Needs and Uses: Respondents would be required to amend their short form applications on or after the effective date of the rule changes with a statement declaring, under penalty of perjury, that the applicant is qualified as a designated entity pursuant to § 1.2110 of the Commission's rules effective as of the date of the statement. The information collected will be used by the Commission to determine if the applicant is legally, technically, and financially qualified to participate in an FCC auction and eligible for the status requested. The Commission's auction rules and requirements are designed to ensure that the competitive bidding process is limited to serious qualified applicants; to deter possible abuse of the bidding and licensing process; and to enhance the use of competitive bidding to assign Commission licenses in furtherance of the public interest.

I. Introduction

1. With this Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (“FNPRM”), WT Docket No. 05-211, FCC 06-8, released February 3, 2006, the Commission considers whether it should modify its general competitive bidding rules (“part 1” rules) governing benefits reserved for designated entities (i.e., small businesses, rural telephone companies, and businesses owned by women and minorities). See 47 CFR 1.2110. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on the elements of a proposal raised by Council Tree Communications, Inc. (“Council Tree”) that seeks to prohibit the award of bidding credits or other small business benefits to entities that have what Council Tree refers to as a “material relationship” with a “large in-region incumbent wireless service provider.” Council Tree maintains that such a prohibition should apply to “otherwise qualified designated entities.” In examining this proposal, the Commission reaches a tentative conclusion that it should modify its part 1 rules to restrict the award of designated entity benefits to an otherwise qualified designated entity where it has a “material relationship” with a “large in-region incumbent wireless service provider,” and the Commission seeks comment on how it should define the elements of such a restriction. Moreover, as discussed further below, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should restrict the award of designated entity benefits where an otherwise qualified designated entity has a “material relationship” with a large entity that has a significant interest in communications services. The Commission intends to complete this proceeding in time so that any modifications to its rules resulting from this proceeding will apply to the upcoming auction of licenses for Advanced Wireless Services (“AWS”), which currently is scheduled to begin June 29, 2006. In light of its upcoming auction schedule, the Commission seeks comment on a proposal to require designated entity auction applicants to certify their qualifications subject to the changed rules by amending any auction applications that are pending on the effective date of any rule changes adopted in this proceeding.

II. Background

2. In the Commission's Declaratory Ruling and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 70 FR 43322 (July 27, 2005), 70 FR 43376 (July 27, 2005) to implement rules and procedures needed to comply with the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act (“CSEA”), the Commission proposed a number of changes to its part 1 competitive bidding rules that were necessary, apart from CSEA, to bring them in line with the current requirements of its auctions program. With this FNPRM, the Commission considers further updates to its part 1 competitive bidding rules and procedures.

3. The questions and tentative conclusion the Commission poses here arise out of a proposal made by Council Tree in an ex parte filing that in part supplemented its petition for reconsideration of the Commission's order establishing service rules for Advanced Wireless Services (“AWS”) in the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands. In the AWS-1 Service Rules Order, 69 FR 5711, February 6, 2004, the Commission adopted rules designed to ensure that designated entities are given the opportunity to participate in an auction of AWS spectrum. By establishing a range of geographic licensing areas including relatively small areas, such as Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) and Rural Service Areas (RSAs), and a range of spectrum block sizes, the Commission believed that it would encourage participation by smaller and rural entities. Accordingly, it concluded that adopting set-asides or eligibility restrictions would not be necessary. The Commission also adopted two small business size standards and associated bidding credits for small businesses, concluding that small business size standards and bidding credit levels that matched those offered in auctions of broadband Personal Communications Service (PCS) licenses were appropriate because broadband PCS presented service opportunities, capital requirements, and entry issues comparable to those presented by AWS.

4. Council Tree's petition for reconsideration of the AWS-1 Service Rules Order, urged the Commission to reconsider its position with respect to set-asides for designated entities or, in the alternative, to add a third small business size standard and offer qualifying entities a 35 percent bidding credit. Council Tree's ex parte filing sought to supplement its petition for reconsideration and proposed, among other things, that the Commission prohibit the award of bidding credits or other small business benefits to entities that would “otherwise qualify” for eligibility but have what it refers to as a “material relationship” with a “large in-region incumbent wireless service provider.” Council Tree's proposal also suggested standards by which it sought to define both “material relationship” and “large in-region incumbent wireless service provider.”

5. In its Order on Reconsideration, 70 FR 58061, October 5, 2005, the Commission rejected Council Tree's Petition and the ex parte proposals it made in the AWS proceeding. The Commission concluded, however, that Council Tree's suggestion to restrict the award of bidding credits or other small business benefits where an entity “otherwise qualified” for eligibility but has a “material relationship” with a “large in-region incumbent wireless service provider” warranted further study. It is this conclusion that forms the basis for this FNPRM today. In examining our current rules, the Commission tentatively concludes that it should modify its requirements regarding designated entity eligibility to restrict the award of designated entity benefits to an otherwise qualified designated entity where it has a “material relationship” with a “large in-region incumbent wireless service provider.” As noted below, the Commission seeks comment on the specific elements of Council Tree's proposal. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should restrict the availability of designated entity benefits where an otherwise qualified designated entity has a “material relationship” with a large entity that has a significant interest in the provision of communication services, e.g., voice or data providers, content providers, equipment manufacturers, other media interests, and/or facilities or non-facilities based communications services providers (hereinafter collectively referred to as “entity(ies) with significant interests in communications services”).

III. Discussion

6. Since the inception of the auctions program, the Commission has sought to facilitate the participation of small businesses in the competitive bidding process. In the Competitive Bidding Second Report and Order, 59 FR 22980, May 4, 1994, the Commission established various incentives, such as bidding credits and spectrum set-asides, to encourage designated entities to participate in future auctions and in the provision of service. The Commission also has made substantial efforts to ensure that only legitimate small businesses reap the benefits of the Commission's designated entity program. Over the last decade, the Commission has engaged in numerous rulemakings and adjudicatory investigations to prevent companies from circumventing the objectives of the designated entity eligibility rules.

7. The Commission intends its small business provisions to be available only to bona fide small businesses. In this FNPRM, the Commission tentatively concludes that modifications to its designated entity rules are warranted. In determining whether additional safeguards are necessary to ensure that bidding credits and other benefits are awarded to the appropriate entities, the Commission recognizes that it must strike a delicate balance between encouraging the participation of small businesses in the provision of spectrum based services, and ensuring that those small businesses who do participate in competitive bidding have sufficient capital and flexibility to structure their businesses to be able to compete at auction, fulfill their payment obligations, and ultimately provide service to the public.

8. In its ex parte filing, Council Tree proposes that the Commission prohibit the availability of bidding credits or other small business benefits where an “otherwise qualified” entity seeking such eligibility has what Council Tree refers to as a “material relationship” with a “large, in-region, incumbent wireless service provider.” Council Tree asserts that if the Commission does not limit the availability of bidding credits and other designated entity benefits in such instances, spectrum rights will be concentrated in the hands of large, incumbent wireless service providers. Council Tree states that “following the consummation of announced mergers, the top-5 wireless carriers today will control 89 percent of United States wireless service subscribers, up from just 50 percent in 1995.” It further asserts that in Auction 58, the Commission's recent broadband PCS auction, the five largest wireless carriers won $367 million of licenses, or 18 percent of the auction total. Council Tree maintains that “these same carriers also partnered with designated entities in Auction 58 to win an additional $1.03 billion of licenses, representing another 51 percent of the auction total.” Council Tree concludes that the large carriers structured their relationships with designated entities as a means to realize for themselves the benefits and opportunities that the Commission had intended for small businesses.

9. CTIA—The Wireless Association (“CTIA”) opposes Council Tree's ex parte asserting, among other things, that Council Tree's proposed constraint on relationships between large wireless carriers and those seeking eligibility for small business and entrepreneur provisions is contrary to the Commission's goal of providing legitimate small businesses maximum flexibility in attracting passive financing. CTIA further states that such a limitation on a small business' ability to raise capital would undermine the Commission's intention of promoting small business participation in the highly competitive telecommunications marketplace.

10. In its continued effort to preserve for small businesses and entrepreneurs the benefits reserved for designated entities, the Commission seeks comment generally on whether the Commission's existing rules should be modified as suggested by our tentative conclusion and Council Tree's proposal to address any concerns that our designated entity program may be subject to potential abuse from larger corporate entities. The Commission also seeks comment below on the particular elements of Council Tree's proposal. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should restrict the availability of designated entity benefits where an otherwise qualified designated entity has a “material relationship” with an “entity with significant interests in communications services.”

11. The Commission's existing part 1 rules include generally applicable provisions regarding the attribution of gross revenues of an entity and its controlling interests and affiliates to determine whether that entity meets service-specific eligibility standards for designated entity benefits, such as bidding credits. Council Tree proposes that even where an entity qualifies for designated entity benefits under the Commission's existing rules, such benefits should not be available to that entity if it has a “material relationship” with a “large, in-region, incumbent wireless provider.” The Commission tentatively concludes that it should modify its rules to restrict the award of designated entity benefits where such a relationship exists. The Commission seeks comment on Council Tree's proposal for defining “material relationship” and on the two elements Council Tree proposes to use in defining a “large, in-region, incumbent wireless service provider”—the geographic overlap between the incumbent and the designated entity applicant, as well as the incumbent's wireless gross revenues. The Commission also seeks comment on the factual assertions upon which Council Tree's proposals are based and the impact, if any, that the adoption of the proposed restriction would have on the ability of small businesses to provide spectrum-based services. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should extend any rule modifications it adopts to restrict the availability of designated entity benefits where an otherwise qualified designated entity has a “material relationship” with an “entity with significant interests in communications services.”

12. Material Relationship. As noted above, the Commission currently applies a gross revenues test as its general standard for measuring the size of an entity for the purposes of awarding small business benefits, in part because such a standard provides “an accurate, equitable, and easily ascertainable measure of business size.” Under this standard, the Commission attributes to an applicant the gross revenues of its “controlling interests” and its “affiliates” in assessing whether the applicant is qualified to take advantage of our small business provisions, such as bidding credits. A “controlling interest” includes individuals or entities, or groups of individuals or entities, that have control of the applicant under the principles of either de jure or de facto control and under a totality of the circumstances analysis. Council Tree suggests, however, that the Commission's current rules do not adequately prevent large corporations from structuring relationships in a manner that allows them to gain access to benefits reserved for small businesses.

13. According to Council Tree, the Commission should determine that a “material relationship” exists if a “large, in-region, incumbent wireless service provider” has provided a material portion of the total capitalization of the applicant (i.e., equity plus debt), or has any material operational arrangement with the applicant (such as management, joint marketing, trademark, or other arrangements) or other material financial arrangement relating to the overlap markets. In the event that there is such a “material relationship,” Council Tree advocates that designated entity benefits should be withheld even if the entity would otherwise qualify for designated entity eligibility under our existing rules. As noted above, the Commission tentatively concludes that a relationship between a “large, in-region incumbent wireless service provider” and an otherwise qualified designated entity applicant should trigger a restriction on the availability of designated entity benefits. The Commission therefore seeks comment on the specific nature of the relationship that should trigger such a restriction. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on whether other “material” relationships, such as those between an otherwise qualified designated entity and an “entity with significant interests in communications services,” should trigger a restriction on the award of designated entity benefits.

14. With respect to determining what may constitute a “material financial” or “material operational” relationship, the Commission also seeks comment on whether our existing “controlling interest standard” and affiliation rules appropriately measure and take into consideration the existence of those factors raised by Council Tree. For instance, Council Tree proposes that the material operational arrangements that should trigger any proposed restriction should include management, joint marketing, and trademark arrangements. Insofar as the Commission already attributes the gross revenues of those that have management or marketing agreements with an applicant where such agreements grant authority over key aspects of the applicant's business, the Commission seeks comment on whether a different standard should be used where the relationship in question is with a “large, in-region incumbent wireless service provider” or with an “entity with significant interests in communications services.” If so, how should that standard differ from the factors that the Commission currently considers for determining indicia of control? If commenters believe that the Commission's rules do not already address these types of arrangements, they should specify how it should define these arrangements.

15. The Commission also seeks comment on whether a prohibition based on certain relationships, such as the one proposed by Council Tree, would be too harsh or limit a designated entity's ability to gain access to capital or industry expertise. The Commission seeks comment on whether there may be instances where the existence of either a “material financial agreement” or a “material operational agreement,” in and of itself, may be appropriate between a designated entity and a “large incumbent wireless service provider” or an “entity with significant interests in communications services,” and may not raise issues of undue control. Should the Commission allow designated entities to obtain a bidding credit if they have only a “material financial agreement” or only a “material operational agreement” with a “large incumbent wireless service provider,” or an “entity with significant interests in communications services,” but not both? What factors should the Commission consider in determining whether either type of agreement may be permissible? Would this approach be sufficient to address any concerns that the Commission's designated entity program may be subject to potential abuse from larger corporate entities? Commenters should address the appropriate level of financial or operational participation of a “large incumbent wireless service provider” or an “entity with significant interests in communications services” that should trigger any proposed prohibition of the award of designated entity benefits to entities that are otherwise qualified. As a general matter, should the definition of “material relationship” differ if the Commission adopts its tentative conclusion or if the Commission expands the restriction to include relationships with “entities with significant interests in communications services?”

16. In its Secondary Markets proceeding, the Commission concluded that certain spectrum manager leases between a designated entity licensee and a non-designated entity lessee would cause the spectrum lessee to become an attributable affiliate of the licensee, thus rendering the licensee ineligible for designated entity benefits and making such a spectrum lease impermissible. The Commission seeks comment on what, if any, standard should be used to determine whether a spectrum leasing arrangement is a “material relationship” for the purpose of any additional restriction on the availability of designated entity benefits that it might adopt. The Commission also seeks comment on whether other arrangements should be taken into account. If so, what arrangements should it consider?

17. Wireless Gross Revenues. Council Tree suggests that “large, in-region, incumbent wireless providers” should be defined, in part, as those having what Council Tree refers to as “average gross wireless revenues” for the preceding three years exceeding $5 billion. The Commission seeks comment on this proposed benchmark and whether it is a useful element for consideration if it adopts its tentative conclusion to modify the Commission's part 1 rules to include additional restrictions on the availability of designated entity benefits. Is $5 billion an appropriate level at which to set the benchmark to define “large, in-region incumbent wireless provider?” In contemplating this proposal, the Commission also seeks comment on whether it should evaluate the service provider's “gross wireless revenues” as suggested by Council Tree or instead if it should generally consider “gross revenues” as defined in § 1.2110(n) of the Commission's rules. Should the Commission consider an alternative benchmark? What would be the appropriate benchmark if it extends the restriction on designated entity benefits to designated entities that have material relationships with “entities with significant interests in communications services?” Commenters supporting an alternative benchmark should provide specific data to support any such alternative. What standard should the Commission use to attribute revenues, wireless or otherwise, to the incumbent wireless provider or to an “entity with significant interests in communications services”, if any? Should the Commission use the same “controlling interest” standard and affiliation rules currently used to attribute to an applicant the gross revenues of its investors and affiliates in determining whether the applicant qualifies for small business benefits?

18. Significant Geographic Overlap. In addition to a gross revenues benchmark, Council Tree proposes that the Commission define a “large, in-region, incumbent wireless service provider” as an entity (including all parties under common control) that is, or has an attributable interest in, a CMRS or AWS licensee whose licensed service area has significant overlap in the geographic area to be licensed to the designated entity applicant. As a general matter, the Commission seeks comment on whether geographic overlap should be an element in establishing any additional restriction on the availability of designated entity benefits. Council Tree proposes that for purposes of determining significant geographic overlap in defining an in-region incumbent wireless service provider, the Commission should apply the standard set forth in § 20.6(c) of the Commission's rules. Although the CMRS spectrum aggregation limit sunset on January 1, 2003, § 20.6 defined significant overlap of geographic service areas for the purpose of that limit, and provides that significant overlap occurs when there is an overlap of at least 10 percent of the population within the impacted service areas. The further seeks comment on whether it should apply the standard set forth in § 20.6(c) of the Commission's rules as proposed by Council Tree. If so, what factors should the Commission consider in applying this standard to all wireless services? Should it apply a different, or any, geographic standard if it extends the restriction on designated entity benefits to designated entities that have material relationships with “entities with significant interests in communications services?” If the Commission determines that a significant geographic overlap does exist, how should the Commission implement such a restriction? Should an incumbent be allowed to divest its interest in the subject service area to allow a designated entity applicant to maintain eligibility for a bidding credit? If so, within what time period should the Commission require the divestiture? The Commission seeks comment on whether the application of the standard set forth in § 20.6(c) of the Commission's rules or any other geographic overlap restriction would place an undue administrative burden on the Commission, making it difficult to monitor an applicant's compliance with any adopted geographic overlap restriction. Should the Commission consider adopting any other geographic overlap standards? In addressing these issues, commenters should state with specificity what factors the Commission should consider and what mechanisms it should adopt to ensure an applicant's continued compliance with any geographic overlap restriction.

19. Entities with Significant Interests in Communications Services. As noted above, the Commission seeks comment on whether we should prohibit the award of designated entity benefits where an otherwise qualified designated entity applicant has a “material relationship” with an “entity with significant interests in communications services.” If the Commission extends the restriction in this manner, should the Commission define “entities with significant interests in communications services” to include a broad category of businesses such as voice or data providers, content providers, equipment manufacturers, other media interests, and/or facilities or non-facilities based communications services providers? The Commission seeks comment on whether all of these entities should be included as part of its definition of “entities with significant interests in communications services.” Should the Commission consider excluding some of these entities from its proposed definition? If so, which entities should the Commission exclude and why? Are there additional entities that it should consider including as part of its proposed definition? If so, which entities should the Commission include, and why? Moreover, the Commission seeks comment on how it should specifically define “significant interests in communications services?” Does the Commission's consideration of the category “communications services” provide additional safeguards to ensure the award of its designated entity benefits only to legitimate small businesses or does it create too many obstacles for designated entities to obtain access to capital?

20. Unjust Enrichment. The Commission's existing rules require the payment of unjust enrichment when an entity that acquires its license with small business benefits loses its eligibility for such benefits or transfers a license to another entity that is not eligible for the same level of benefits. Council Tree suggests that the Commission should also impose a reimbursement obligation on a licensee that, in the first five years of its license term, acquires a license with a bidding credit and subsequently makes a change in its “material relationships” or seeks to assign or transfer control of the license to an entity that would result in its loss of eligibility for the bidding credit pursuant to any eligibility restriction that the Commission adopt. Council Tree asserts that such a requirement is necessary to fulfill the Commission's statutory obligation to prevent unjust enrichment and to ensure that the new eligibility requirement for bidding credits has the intended effect of helping eligible small businesses to acquire spectrum licenses. Council Tree also proposes, however, that an unjust enrichment payment should not be required in the case of “natural growth” of the revenues attributed to an incumbent carrier above the established benchmark. Instead, it suggests that the reimbursement obligation should apply only where the licensee takes on new investment, or enters into any operational agreement, that would have disqualified the licensee for the bidding credit at the time of the licensee's initial application. The Commission seeks comment on whether, if it adopts a new restriction on the award of bidding credits to designated entities, the Commission should adopt revisions to its unjust enrichment rules such as those proposed by Council Tree, or in some other manner. Should any reimbursement obligation the Commission adopts apply where the licensee takes on new investment, or also where it enters into any new “material financial relationship” or “material operational relationship” that would have rendered the licensee ineligible for a bidding credit? If the Commission requires reimbursement by licensees that, either through a change of “material relationships” or assignment or transfer of control of the license, lose their eligibility for a bidding credit pursuant to any eligibility restriction that it might adopt, over what portion of the license term should such unjust enrichment provisions apply?

21. Pending Auction Provisions. As stated at the outset, the Commission intends any changes adopted in this proceeding to apply to AWS licenses currently scheduled to be offered in an auction beginning June 29, 2006. In light of the current auction schedule, any changes that the Commission adopts in this proceeding may become effective after the deadline for filing applications to participate in that auction. Under Commission rules, applicants asserting designated entity status in a Commission auction are required to declare, under penalty of perjury, that they are qualified as a designated entity under § 1.2110 of the Commission's rules. In the event that any designated entity applicants have filed an application to participate in an auction prior to the effective date of any designated entity rule changes adopted in this proceeding, the Commission proposes to require such applicants to amend their applications on or after the effective date of the rule changes with a statement declaring, under penalty of perjury, that the applicant is qualified as a designated entity pursuant to § 1.2110 of the Commission's rules effective as of the date of the statement. In the event applicants fail to file such a statement pursuant to procedures announced by public notice, they will be ineligible to qualify as a designated entity, e.g., receive small business bidding credits, either generally or with respect to specific licenses. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.

IV. Conclusion

22. For the reasons stated above, the Commission seeks comment on its competitive bidding rules, on the elements of the specific proposal raised by Council Tree, and on its tentative conclusion to modify its part 1 rules to prohibit the award of designated entity benefits where an otherwise qualified designated entity has a “material relationship” with a “large, in-region wireless service provider.”

23. For purposes of this permit-but-disclose notice and comment proceeding, members of the public are advised that ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the sunshine Agenda period, provided that the presentations are disclosed pursuant to the Commission's rules.

B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

24. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act, see 5 U.S.C. 603, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of the proposals suggested in this Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments filed in response to this FNPRM, and must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA. The Commission will send a copy of this FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, this FNPRM and the IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

i. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

25. This FNPRM tentatively concludes that the Commission should modify its general competitive bidding rules governing benefits reserved for designated entities (i.e., small businesses, rural telephone companies, and businesses owned by women and minorities). Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on the specific elements of a proposal raised by Council Tree Communications, Inc. (“Council Tree”) that seeks to prohibit the award of bidding credits or other small business benefits to entities that have what Council Tree refers to as a “material relationship” with a “large in-region incumbent wireless service provider.” Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on whether there are other entities that might have a significant interest in the provision of communication services, e.g., voice or data providers, content providers, equipment manufacturers, other media interests, and/or facilities or non-facilities based communications services providers (hereinafter collectively referred to as “entity(ies) with significant interests in communications services,”) whose relationship with an otherwise qualified designated entity applicant should trigger a restriction on the availability of designated entity benefits.

26. Over the last decade, the Commission has engaged in numerous rulemakings and adjudicatory investigations to prevent companies from circumventing the objectives of the designated entity eligibility rules. To that end, in determining whether to award designated entity benefits, the Commission adopted a strict eligibility standard that focused on whether the applicant maintained control of the corporate entity. The Commission's objective in employing such a standard was “to deter the establishment of sham companies in a manner that permits easy resolution of eligibility issues without the delay of administrative hearings.” The Commission intends its small business provisions to be available only to bona fide small businesses.

27. By this FNPRM, the Commission tentatively concludes that modifications to its designated entity rules are warranted. In determining what additional safeguards are necessary to ensure that bidding credits and other benefits are awarded to the appropriate entities, the Commission recognizes that it must strike a delicate balance between encouraging the participation of small businesses in the provision of spectrum based services, and ensuring that those small businesses who do participate in competitive bidding, have sufficient capital to be able to compete at auction, fulfill their payment obligations, and ultimately provide service to the public. In its continued effort to reserve for small businesses and entrepreneurs the designated entity benefits that the Commission offers, this FNPRM seeks comment on the elements of Council Tree's proposal and the Commission's tentative conclusion that its existing rules should be modified.

ii. Legal Basis

28. The proposed actions are authorized under sections 4(i), 303(r), and 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r), and 309(j).

iii. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Proposed Rules Will Apply

29. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small organization,” “small business,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” The term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act. A small business concern is one which: (a) Is independently owned and operated; (b) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (c) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.

30. A small organization is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” Nationwide, as of 2002, there were approximately 1.6 million small organizations. The term “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined as “governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” As of 1997, there were approximately 87,453 governmental jurisdictions in the United States. This number includes 39,044 county governments, municipalities, and townships, of which 37,546 (approximately 96.2%) have populations of fewer than 50,000, and of which 1,498 have populations of 50,000 or more. Thus, the Commission estimates the number of small governmental jurisdictions overall to be 84,098 or fewer. Nationwide, there are a total of approximately 22.4 million small businesses, according to SBA data.

31. Any proposed changes or additions to the Commission's part 1 rules that may be made as a result of this FNPRM would be of general applicability to all services, applying to all entities of any size that apply to participate in Commission auctions. Accordingly, this IRFA provides a general analysis of the impact of the proposals on small businesses rather than a service by service analysis. The number of entities that may apply to participate in future Commission auctions is unknown. The number of small businesses that have participated in prior auctions has varied. In all of the Commission's auctions held to date, 1,973 out of a total of 3,303 qualified bidders either have claimed eligibility for small business bidding credits or have self-reported their status as small businesses as that term has been defined under rules adopted by the Commission for specific services. In addition, the Commission notes that, as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Also, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated.

iv. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements

32. In the event that the Commission changes its designated entity rules in this proceeding, designated entity applicants that have filed applications to participate in an auction before the effective date of any changes may be required to amend their applications on or after the effective date of the rule changes with a statement declaring, under penalty of perjury, that the applicant is qualified as a designated entity pursuant to the Commission's rules effective as of the date of the statement.

v. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

33. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (a) The establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (b) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (c) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (d) an exemption from coverage of the rule or any part thereof for small entities.

34. This FNPRM tentatively concludes that the Commission should modify its general competitive bidding rules regarding designated entity eligibility. The Commission seeks comment on the specific elements described in a proposal raised by Council Tree Communications, Inc., which seeks to prohibit the award of bidding credits or other small business benefits to entities that have what Council Tree refers to as a “material relationship” with a “large in-region incumbent wireless service provider.” The Commission also seeks comment on whether such a restriction should apply to “entities with significant interests in communications services.” The Commission seeks guidance from the industry on how it should define the elements of any restrictions it might adopt regarding the award of designated entity benefits. Small entity comments are specifically requested.

vi. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed Rule

35. None.

C. Ordering Clauses

36. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to sections 4(i), 303(r), and 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r), and 309(j), this Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making is hereby adopted.

37. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION:

Proposed rule, reopening of public comment period.

SUMMARY:

On November 2, 2005, NMFS published a proposed rule to revise current critical habitat (CH) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) for the northern right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) by designating areas within the North Pacific Ocean. Two areas are proposed for designation: an area in the southeast Bering Sea and a second area in the Gulf of Alaska south of Kodiak Island. In response to a request, a public hearing on this proposed rule will be held on March 2, 2006, in Anchorage, AK.

DATES:

The hearing will be held in Anchorage, AK on Thursday, March 2, 2006, from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. The public comment period on the proposed rule (70 FR 66332) will reopen on February 10, 2006 so that additional comments submitted at, or in response to the hearing may be considered in the promulgation of the final rule. Any additional comments on this proposed rule must be received on or before March 9, 2006.

• E-mail: 0648-AT84-NPRWCH@noaa.gov. Include in the subject line the following document identifier: Right Whale Critical Habitat PR. E-mail comments, with or without attachments, are limited to 5 megabytes.

• Webform at the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions at that site for submitting comments.

Regulations governing petitions to revise critical habitat under the ESA provide that a public hearing shall be held if any person so requests within 45 days of publication of a proposed regulation (50 CFR 424.16(c)(3)). Notice of such hearing is to be published in the Federal Register no later than 15 days prior to the hearing.

Comments and Responses

The November 2 proposed rule concerning designation of critical habitat established a comment period ending on January 3, 2006. Twenty-one comments were received on the proposed rule. These comments are summarized below. Responses to these and to comments received during the public hearing will appear in the final rule on this action.

Size of Proposed Critical Habitat is Too Large

Comment: The southern and western boundaries of the proposed critical habitat in the Bering Sea are based on very few right whale sightings. Eliminating these areas would reduce the extent of the critical habitat from 27,700 to 24,000 square miles but retain approximately 99 percent of all sightings.

Comment: The area designated as CH is arbitrary because there is no obvious correlation between copepod abundance and the distribution of the northern right whale.

Proposed Critical Habitat is Too Small

Comment: The proposed designations fail to address unoccupied right whale habitat. Additional areas outside of the known range of the northern right whale at the time of ESA listing should be included in this designation.

Comment: The extent of the areas proposed for designation as critical habitat in the North Pacific Ocean would not be sufficient to provide for the recovery of the northern right whale.

Comment: The proposed designation is negatively biased in that it is based on sighting effort which is not consistent over the range of the northern right whale. Therefore, the designation should be expanded to compensate for this bias. Both right whales and their Primary Constituent Elements (PCE's) are likely to occur elsewhere in densities equivalent to those occurring in the designated critical habitats.

Comment: The proposed designation should be expanded to recognize the probability of increased importance of adjacent areas, and to be consistent with similar efforts to designate CH for the northern right whale in the North Atlantic Ocean.

Comment: The precautionary principle requires NMFS to designate other areas with similar habitat conditions as CH.

Comment: The designation should include State of Alaska waters because they have nearly identical features to the proposed CH areas.

Comment: NMFS should consider designation of adjacent areas to preserve diversity and act as buffer areas.

Comment: NMFS should include in its designation historical right whale habitat which was essential to their conservation.

Comment: NMFS data demonstrate right whales are found through Unimak Pass and eastward to Kodiak Island. These waters also contain important features or serve important biological needs and should be added to the areas proposed for designation.

Comment: NMFS should include migratory corridors or transitional waters between high use habitats of the northern right whale in its CH designation. This should include the waters from Umnak Pass to Unimak Pass.

Comment: NMFS should review data from the past century and designate CH for areas where right whale concentrations overlay known areas of prey abundance.

Comment: Critical habitat should be designated to include those physical features which promote fronts, upwelling, and dynamic advection of nutrient-rich waters that promote zooplankton productivity.

Primary Constituent Elements

Comment: Feeding areas should be identified as a Primary Constituent Element (PCE) for the northern right whale.

Comment: PCE's are defined too narrowly in the proposed rule. Other elements are also critical to conservation of this species.

Comment: By defining PCEs as only the zooplankton species, NMFS has created a situation where impaired water quality and other impacts would not result in adverse modification of the CH.

Comment: NMFS should follow the example of the Steller's eider and spectacled eider by identifying PCE's to include all marine waters of appropriate depths, along with the underlying marine benthic community.

Comment: PCE's should include ocean passes and channels used by right whales.

Research

Comment: More research is needed to describe PCEs for the northern right whale.

Comment: NMFS should increase efforts to place radio tags on right whales.

Comment: Additional research is necessary to describe habitat use and preferences, migratory patterns, breeding and calving, and factors affecting the recovery of the northern right whale.

Comment: NMFS should dedicate more effort to study vessel interaction and collision avoidance by right whales.

Prohibitions and Activities in Critical Habitat

Comment: Critical habitat must be protected from more than just activities which may affect copepods. Protection is also needed from the effects of ship strikes, fishing gear interaction, changes in sea temperatures and environmental conditions caused by humans.

Comment: Designation of CH should not include amendment of fishery management measures as there is no evidence of fisheries interaction, including ship strikes, with right whales in the North Pacific Ocean.

Comment: Oil and gas development is incompatible with the ecology and economy of Bristol Bay and the Northeast Pacific Region. Major oil spills, related discharges, seismic activity, and ship strikes are all oil and gas-related actions which constitute adverse modification of CH.

Comment: Specific, focused reference to the oil and gas industry as representing a threat to the proposed right whale CH should be removed from the proposed rule.

Comment: Designation of CH will open the citizen suit provisions of the ESA and result in litigation and delays in projects. Economic activities that are not impacting right whale recovery will be negatively impacted.

Comment: Designation of CH will lead to regulatory creep and increase costs through added consultations and mitigation measures imposed by the Federal Government.

Economic Considerations

Comment: NMFS has correctly characterized both the economic significance of commercial fishing to the region, State, and Nation, and the effective absence of the possibility that commercial fishing can destroy or adversely modify the proposed CH for northern right whales in the Eastern Bering Sea (EBS) and Gulf of Alaska (GOA).

Comment: While no adverse economic or operational impacts on commercial fisheries are associated with the proposed designation, a modification of the southern and western boundaries (reduction) of CH in the EBS makes sense and would reduce the possibility of any even hypothetical future impacts on fishing activity.

Comment: In addition to the recommended exclusions of areas in the south and west of the proposed CH for northern right whales in the EBS to accommodate commercial fishing, the northern boundary should be moved south (reduced) from the proposed 58°00' N. to 57°30' N., owing to the presence of economically significant commercial fishing activity (bottom trawling) traditionally conducted there.

Comment: A substantial portion (especially the southern and eastern sections) of the proposed designation of CH in the EBS coincides with Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Leasing Areas projected to have high to moderate natural gas production potential, and moderate oil production potential. The economic and development benefits of these areas (in particular, the Aleutian Basin Area) justify their exclusion under provisions of the ESA.

Comment: The communities that are located in remote western Alaska, adjacent to the proposed designation, chronically suffer from inadequate economic development and opportunity. The entire region would benefit from economic diversification, such as that which would accompany oil and gas exploration and development. The proposed designation of CH in the EBS could increase cost, significantly delay, or even prevent such economic development, while contributing nothing to the conservation and recovery of the right whale population.

Comment: Inferences about the risk of fishing gear entanglements and/or vessel strikes of right whales in the North Pacific, based upon such experiences in the North Atlantic, are inappropriate and unsupported by evidence or data. The nature and magnitude of fishing and other economic activity within the two marine environments are fundamentally different and not comparable.

Comment: The area of the EBS encompassed by the proposed CH boundaries contain the vast majority of groundfish, crab, and halibut resources harvested by commercial fisheries in this region. They have a combined direct economic gross value of well over $1 billion dollars, annually, and are vital to fishermen, processors, and fishery-dependent communities in Alaska. NMFS should explain how, or if, designation of CH for the right whale would affect fishery management actions that would be pursued if the incidental take of a right whale would occur in commercial fisheries.

Comment: The Executive OCS Deferral through 2012 requires that the North Aleutian Basin be excluded from the Five-Year OCS leasing program. This remains a sound decision and any analysis of the proposed designation must recognize that restrictions on petroleum development in the proposed areas impose no new economic costs to society.

Comment: MMS estimates reserves of 7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 230 million barrels of oil in the North Aleutian Basin. Approximately 20 percent of the high prospective geologic basin lies within the southeast corner of the proposed CH area (approximately 8 percent of the proposed designation of CH in the EBS). At risk, therefore, is about 20 percent of the estimated $19 billion in Federal revenues, an estimated 5,000 construction jobs, and sufficient supplies of natural gas, necessary to justify construction and operation of an liquified natural gas (LNG) facility in the area.

Comment: Given the critical status of this species and the requirements put forth in sections 4 and 9 of the ESA, the need for protection of right whales and designation of CH outweighs any potential economic impacts of introducing such protection. It is also important to consider the economic benefit of the survival of this species.

Comment: NMFS has created, by its own admission, CH that will not be adversely modified by oil or gas exploration activity.

Comment: Currently, neither the North Aleutian Basin nor the St. George Basin Planning areas are available for lease, owing to the 2012 deferral order. Many steps must occur before a field in either of these areas could reach production and none of these steps are certain to occur.

Comment: The proposed EBS designation incorporates about one third of the (oil and gas) high-potential part of North Aleutian Basin and most of the area of potential in St. George Basin. No exploration drilling has taken place in the North Aleutian Basin (one non-exploratory well was drilled in 1983). Economic studies show that the marginal prices for the North Aleutian Basin are well below current market prices, illustrating economically producible resources could exist at much lower than current prices, improving the area's feasibility as a potential energy source. If this area becomes available for leasing, if pre-lease oil and gas exploration reveals commercial quantities of petroleum, if market conditions remain favorable, if commercial discoveries are of a scale to support LNG exports, then the direct revenues to federal, state, and local governments could approach $15 billion over a 30-year life cycle. Indirect benefits and economic multiplier effects to the Alaska economy are also likely to be several billions of dollars.

Comment: A basic cost/benefit analysis is submitted for petroleum activities in the North Aleutian Planning Area to demonstrate the economic potential and revenues that may be associated with commercial development. The overall conclusion is economic benefits would accrue to Federal, state, and local governments, as well as the Alaska economy, if a leasing program in the North Aleutian planning area results in commercial development of gas and oil on the scale envisioned by the MMS modeling scenario.

Other Comments

Comment: NMFS should designate CH as Marine Sanctuaries because this would protect other marine assets such as corals.

Comment: NMFS should recognize the voluntary conservation efforts of the fishing industry towards public awareness and avoidance of vessel strikes.

Comment: The Federal Register notice should include data on the seasonal occurrence of right whales in the proposed CH areas, present an analysis of vessel and fishing gear interaction based on photographic evidence, and discuss the effects of climate change and variable ice patterns on copepods.

Comment: The Alaska Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas leasing program has existed for 30 years, during which time the MMS has demonstrated that industry activities can be carried out in a manner that does not jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species, or adversely affect designated critical habitat.

Comment: There is no evidence that commercial trawling in the North Pacific or Eastern Bering Sea results in any adverse impacts on the benthic environment, and certainly none that could adversely impact the PCEs identified under the proposed designation of CH in these areas.

Special Accommodations

This hearing is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Brad Smith (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) at least 10 business days in advance of the hearing.

Office of the Chief Information Officer, Office of Procurement and Property Management, USDA.

ACTION:

Notice and request for comments.

SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), this notice announces the Office of Procurement and Property Management's (OPPM) intention to request an extension for and revision to a currently approved information collection for USDA Personal Identity Verification (PIV) Request for Credential, the USDA Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12) program. HSPD-12 establishes a mandatory, Government-wide standard for secure and reliable forms of identification (credentials) issued by the Federal Government to its employees and contractors. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) mandated that these credentials be issued to all Federal Government employees, contractors, and other applicable individuals who require long-term access to federally controlled facilities and/or information systems. The HSPD-12 compliant program is jointly owned and administered by the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) and the Office of Procurement and Property Management (OPPM).

DATES:

Comments on this notice must be received by April 11, 2006 to be assured of consideration.

HSPD-12 mandates the creation of a standard for identity proofing and credentialing Federal employees and contractors. Federal Information Processing Standard Publication 201 (FIPS-201) outlines the requirements for implementing processes and technologies consistent with control objectives of HSPD-12. FIPS-201 establishes a standard for a Personal Identity Verification (PIV) system based on secure and reliable forms of identification credentials issued by the Federal Government to its employees and contractors. These credentials are intended to authenticate individuals who require access to federally controlled facilities, information systems, and applications. FIPS 201 addresses requirements for initial identity proofing, infrastructures to support interoperability of identity credentials, and accreditation of organizations and processes issuing PIV credentials.

FIPS 201 outlines two phases to implement an HSPD-12 compliant program. Phase I (PIV I) outlines the registration, identity proofing, and issuance process. Phase II (PIV II) outlines the technical and interoperability requirements of an HSPD-12 compliant system. USDA is currently developing PIV II, scheduled to be implemented by the required date of October 27, 2006.

Title: USDA PIV Request For Credential;

OMB Number: 0505-0022;

Expiration Date of Approval: 4/30/06;

Type of Request: Extension and revision of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: The HSPD-12 information collection consists of two phases of implementation: Personal Identity Verification phase I (PIV I) and Personal Identity Verification phase II (PIV II). The information requested must be provided by Federal employees, contractors and other applicable individuals when applying for a USDA credential (identification card). This information collection is necessary to comply with the requirements outlined in Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 12, and Federal Information Processing Standard (FIPS) 201, Personal Identity Verification (PIV) Phase I. USDA must implement an identity proofing, registration, and issuance process consistent with the requirements outlined in FIPS 201. This information collection form is required as part of USDA's PIV I identity proofing and registration process. For PIV II, implemented before 10/27/06, form AD 1197 will be eliminated and the identity process will be streamlined with the addition of a Web-based HSPD-12 system. Therefore, two estimates of burden are calculated and two process descriptions are included.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 4.75 hours per response for PIV I, and 4.25 hours for PIV II. The Burden is estimated based on the three prerequisites for PIV Credential issuance as well as the receipt of the PIV Credential itself.

Respondents: For PIV I, new long term contractors, affiliates, and employees must undergo the information collection process. For PIV II, long term contractors, affiliates, and employees must undergo the information collection process. Existing contractors/employees/affiliates must undergo the process to receive a PIV Credential.

Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to Martin Brumback. All comments received will be available for public inspection during regular business hours.

All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App 2, the United States Department of Agriculture announces a meeting of the National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board (Advisory Board).

DATES:

The meeting dates are March 7-9, 2006, Washington, DC.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments by any of the following methods before or up to two weeks after the meeting: e-mail: jspurling@csrees.usda.gov; Fax: (202)720-6199; Mail/Hand-Delivery: National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics Advisory Board Office, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 344-A, Jamie L. Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250-2255.

The meeting will take place at the Economic Research Service (ERS) of USDA, 1800 M Street, NW., (3rd Floor), Washington, DC 20020. On Tuesday, March 7, 2006, at 1 p.m. the focus session will begin with introductory remarks provided by the Chair of the Advisory Board, Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics (REE), USDA, followed by remarks from officials and/or designated experts from the four agencies of USDA's Research, Education, and Economics. On Wednesday, March 8, 2006, the general focus session will begin at 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. with highlights on “Germ Plasma and Bio Energy”. On Thursday, March 9, 2006, the focus session will reconvene at 8 a.m. to hear recap highlights of the previous day's focus session, followed by overall Advisory Board discussions. The Advisory Board Meeting will adjourn by 12 Noon. All portions of the Advisory Board meeting are open to the public. An opportunity for public comment will be offered after the meeting wrap-up.

Written comments by attendees or other interested stakeholders will be welcomed for the public record before and up to two weeks following the Advisory Board meeting (by close of business Thursday, March 23, 2006). All statements will become a part of the official record of the Advisory Board and will be kept on file for public review in the Advisory Board Office.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) is announcing its intention to request an extension for a currently approved information collection process in support of the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program.

DATES:

Comments on this notice must be received by April 16, 2006 to be assured of consideration.

Title: McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program.

OMB Control Number: 0551-0039.

Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved information collection.

Abstract: This information is needed to administer the McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program. The information will be gathered from applicants desiring to receive grants under the program to determine the viability of requests for resources to implement school feeding and maternal and child nutrition programs in foreign countries and other periodic reports during the course of implementing the activities.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of the additional information is estimated to average 10.6 hours per applicant.

Copies of the information collection may be obtained from Kimberly Chisley, the Agency Information Collection Coordinator, at (202) 720-2568.

Request for Comments: Send comments regarding (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; or (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Comments should be sent to the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503 and to: William S. Hawkins, Director, Program Administration Division, Foreign Agricultural Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave., SW., Stop 1031, Washington, DC 20250-1031; Telephone (202) 720-3241.

All responses to this notice will be summarized. All comments will also become a matter of public record.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) and Office of Management and Budget regulations at 5 CFR part 1320 (60 FR 44978, August 29, 1995), this notice announces the intention of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) to request reinstatement with change of a previously approved information collection, the Census of Agriculture.

DATES:

Comments on this notice must be received by April 11, 2006 to be assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES:

Comments may be sent to Ginny McBride, NASS Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 5336 South Building, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-2024 or gmcbride@nass.usda.gov or faxed to (202) 720-6396.

Type of Request: Intent to Request Reinstatement of a Previously Approved Information Collection.

Abstract: The census of agriculture, conducted every 5 years, is the primary source of statistics concerning the nation's agricultural industry. It provides the only basis of consistent, comparable data for each county, county equivalent, and State in the United States and its outlying insular areas. The census of agriculture is required by law under the Census of Agriculture Act of 1997, Pub. L. 105-113, 7 U.S.C. 2204(g).

The 2007 census of agriculture will cover all agricultural operations in the 50 States, Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), and American Samoa (AS), which meet the census definition for a farm. For the States, Guam, and CNMI, a farm is any place that produced and sold, or normally would produce and sell, $1,000 or more of agricultural products during the census year. For Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands it is any place with $500 in sales. American Samoa defines a farm without using a specific dollar value of sales.

Data collection for the censuses of agriculture for the 50 States and Puerto Rico will be conducted primarily by mail-out/mail-back procedures. Data collection for Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, CNMI, and AS, will be conducted using direct enumeration methods. NASS conducted a census survey form content test (OMB No. 5035-0243) during the winter of 2005-2006 to evaluate new content items, report form design and format, and processing procedures for the 50 States.

To minimize response burden NASS is introducing a new short form which is targeted to farm operators who have a history of only raising a few commodities. This history is determined by administrative data collected over multiple years from surveys and censuses. The short form allows a respondent to report virtually every question contained in the long form but with a streamlined approach. With fewer pages to review, respondents will be able to report their commodities more quickly. This also eliminates the need for sample data, used since the 1978 Census of Agriculture, which has increasingly caused confusion on the part of data users. A long form will be tailored to various regions of the country, as in past censuses, and used to collect data from operators with several crop and/or livestock commodities or unknown agricultural production. A screening survey conducted prior to the census will again be used to eliminate non-farm operations from the census mail list.

The Census of Agriculture Act guarantees farm operators that their individual information will be kept confidential. NASS uses the information only for statistical purposes and publishes only summarized data. These data are used by Congress when developing or changing farm programs. Many national and State programs are designed or allocated based on census data, such as soil conservation projects, funds for cooperative extension programs, and research funding. Private industry uses the data to provide more effective production and distribution systems for the agricultural community.

Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection is estimated to average 50 minutes per positive response, 10 minutes per screen-out, and 1 minute per refusal.

Respondents: Farm and ranch operators.

Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,160,000.

Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 1,400,000 hours.

Copies of this information collection and related instructions can be obtained without charge from Ginny McBride, NASS Clearance Officer, at (202) 720-5778.

Comments: Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ( c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

All responses to this notice will become a matter of public record and be summarized in the request for OMB approval.

The duties of the Committee are solely advisory. The Committee will make recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture with regards to the agricultural statistics program of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) and such other matters as it may deem advisable, or which the Secretary of Agriculture, Under Secretary for Research, Education, and Economics, or the Administrator of NASS may request. The Advisory Committee meeting will be held on February 14-15, 2006. All meetings are open to the public. Committee members will be reimbursed for official travel expenses only.

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) announces a meeting of the Advisory Committee on Agriculture Statistics.

DATES:

The Committee meeting will be held from 1 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 14, 2006, and from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Wednesday, February 15, 2006. There will be an opportunity for public questions and comments at 3:30 p.m. on February 15, 2006.

ADDRESSES:

The Committee meeting will take place at the Crystal Gateway Marriott Hotel, 1700 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia, 22202. Written comments may be filed before or within a reasonable time after the meeting with the contact person identified herein at: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Room 5041A, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-2000.

The Advisory Committee on Agriculture Statistics, which consists of 25 members appointed from 7 categories covering a broad range of agricultural disciplines and interests, has scheduled a meeting on February 14-15, 2006. During this time the Advisory Committee will discuss topics including Small and Minority Farm coverage in the 2007 Census of Agriculture, the needs for the 2007 Census of Agriculture follow-on surveys, and Improving Respondent Relations and Reducing Reporting Burden Publications.

The Committee meeting is open to the public. The public may file written comments to the USDA Advisory Committee contact person before or within a reasonable time after the meeting. All statements will become a part of the official records of the USDA Advisory Committee on Agriculture Statistics and will be kept on file for public review in the office of the Executive Director, Advisory Committee on Agriculture Statistics, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250.

The Agricultural Air Quality Task Force (AAQTF) will meet to continue discussions on air quality issues relating to agriculture.

DATES:

The meeting will convene on Tuesday, February 28, 2006, through Thursday, March 2, 2006. Public comment periods will be held twice on each day, once in the morning, and once in the afternoon. Individuals making oral presentations should register in-person at the venue, and must bring with them 50 copies of material they would like distributed. Written material for AAQTF's consideration prior to the meeting must be received by Dr. Diane E. Gelburd (contact information forthcoming) no later than Thursday, February 23, 2006.

ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn Select, 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland 20814; telephone: (301) 652-2000.

Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2. Additional information concerning AAQTF may be found on the World Wide Web at http://www.airquality.nrcs.usda.gov/AAQTF/.

Draft Agenda of the February 28 through March 2, 2006, Meeting of the AAQTF:

A. Welcome to Bethesda, Maryland.

B. Discussion of Minutes from Previous Meeting.

C. Discussion of Documents to be Approved by the End of the Meeting.

D. Subcommittee Presentations.

1. Emerging Issues Subcommittee Report.

2. Research Subcommittee Report.

3. Policy Subcommittee Report.

4. Education and Outreach Subcommittee Report.

E. Environmental Protection Agency Update.

F. Next Meeting, Time and Place.

G. Public Comments.

(Time will be reserved in the morning and afternoon of each daily session to receive public comments. Individual presentations will be limited to 5 minutes).

Procedural: This meeting is open to the public. At the discretion of the Chair, members of the public may give oral presentations during the meeting. Those persons wishing to make oral presentations should register in person at the venue. Those wishing to distribute written material at the meeting itself, in conjunction with spoken comments, must bring 50 copies of the material with them. Written material for distribution to AAQTF members prior to the meeting must be received by Dr. Gelburd no later than Thursday February 23, 2006.

Information on Services for Individuals with Disabilities: For information on facilities or services for individuals with disabilities, or to request special assistance at the meeting, please contact Dr. Gelburd. The Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, sexual orientation, or disability. Additionally, discrimination on the basis of political beliefs and marital or family status is also prohibited by statutes enforced by USDA (not all prohibited bases apply to all programs). Persons with disabilities who require alternate means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audio tape, etc.) should contact the USDA's Target Center at (202) 720-2000 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.

ACTION:

Proposed additions to and deletions from Procurement List.

SUMMARY:

The Committee is proposing to add to the Procurement List products and services to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and to delete products and services previously furnished by such agencies.

This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C 47(a) (2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.

Additions

If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal government identified in this notice for each product or service will be required to procure the product and service listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. If approved, the action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the product and service to the government.

2. If approved, the action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product and service to the government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the product and service proposed for addition to the Procurement List.

Comments on this certification are invited. Commenters should identify the statement(s) underlying the certification on which they are providing additional information.

End of Certification

The following product and service are proposed for addition to Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:

I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:

1. If approved, the action may result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.

2. If approved, the action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the products and services to the government.

3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48c) in connection with the products and services proposed for deletion from the Procurement List.

End of Certification

The following products and services are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:

An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Illinois International Port District, grantee of FTZ 22, requesting authority on behalf of Michelin North America (MNA) to assemble wheels under FTZ procedures at the MNA distribution facility located in Monee, Illinois. The application was formally filed on February 2, 2006.

FTZ procedures would exempt MNA from Customs duty payments on the foreign components used in production for export to non-NAFTA countries. On shipments for U.S. consumption and to NAFTA markets, MNA could elect the wheel assembly duty rate (generally dutiable as an auto part −2.5%) for the foreign components (mostly tires dutiable at 4%) listed above. The auto part duty rate (2.5%) would apply if the wheel assemblies are shipped via zone-to-zone transfer to U.S. motor vehicle assembly plants with subzone status. The application indicates that the savings from FTZ procedures would help improve the facility's international competitiveness.

In accordance with the Board's regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff has been designated examiner to investigate the application and report to the Board.

Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at one of the following addresses:

The closing period for their receipt is April 11, 2006. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period (to April 26, 2006).

Copies of the request will be available for public inspection at the Office of the Foreign-Trade Zones Board's Executive Secretary at address Number 1 listed above.

An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) by the Northeast Ohio Trade & Economic Consortium (NEOTEC), grantee of FTZ 181, requesting authority to expand Site 2a in Trumbull County, Ohio within the Cleveland Customs port of entry. The application was submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the Board (15 CFR Part 400). It was formally filed on January 31, 2006.

FTZ 181 was approved by the Board on December 23, 1991 (Board Order 546, 57 FR 41; 1/2/92). On March 13, 1998, the grant of authority was reissued to NEOTEC (Board Order 965, 63 FR 13837; 3/23/98). The zone was expanded in 1997 (Board Order 902, 62 FR 36044; 7/3/97), in 1998 (Board Order 968, 63 FR 16962; 4/7/98), in 1999 (Board Order 1053, 64 FR 51291; 9/22/99), in 2002 (Board Order 1260, 67 FR 71933; 12/3/02), and in 2004 (Board Order 1334, 69 FR 30281; 5/27/04). An additional expansion application (Docket 57-2005, filed 11/14/2005) is currently pending with the Board. FTZ 181 currently consists of seven sites in the northeast, Ohio area covering the Counties of Summit, Trumbull, Mahoning, Columbiana, Stark, Ashtabula, and Portage.

The applicant is now requesting authority to expand current Site 2 by adding the 258-acre River Road Industrial Park located at 1265 North River Road, Warren, (Trumbull County), Ohio. The new parcel is owned by Delphi Packard Electric Division, who occupies 139 acres and plans to sell 119 acres for industrial park development.

No specific manufacturing requests are being made at this time. Such requests would be made to the Board on a case-by case basis.

In accordance with the Board's regulations, a member of the FTZ Staff has been designated examiner to investigate the application and report to the Board.

Public comment on the application is invited from interested parties. Submissions (original and 3 copies) shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary at the address below. The closing period for their receipt is April 11, 2006. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period (to April 26, 2006).

A copy of the application and accompanying exhibits will be available for public inspection at each of the following locations:

On September 8, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Romania. The review covers Mittal Steel Galati, S.A. (“Mittal Steel”, formerly Ispat Sidex S.A.) a manufacturer of the subject merchandise, and Metalexportimport SA (“MEI”), an unaffiliated exporter. The period of review is August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004. This administrative review also covers additional producers/exporters of the subject merchandise: Metanef, S.A. (“Metanef”), MINMET S.A. (“MINMET”), CSR SA Resita (“CSR”) and Combinatul de Oteluri Speciali Tirgoviste (“COST”), for which the Department is now finally rescinding this review because these producers/exporters, with the exception of CSR, did not ship subject merchandise during the period of review (“POR”). With respect to CSR, Nucor Corporation (“Nucor”), a petitioner in this proceeding, filed a timely request for withdrawal of the administrative review for this company.

On September 8, 2005, the Department published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on certain cut-to-length carbon steel plate (“cut-to-length plate”) from Romania. See Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania: Preliminary Results of the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review and Partial Rescission, 70 FR 53333 (September 8, 2005) (“Preliminary Results”). We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. Since the publication of the Preliminary Results, the following events have occurred.

On September 16, 2005, Mittal Steel notified the Department that in the process of preparing a pre-verification reconciliation package for a separate proceeding, the company discovered a significant quantity of subject merchandise that it failed to report in response to the Department's section A questionnaire in this administrative review. See Memorandum from John Drury to the File, dated September 16, 2005. On September 20, 2005, Mittal Steel submitted a letter to the Department indicating that it would not participate in the cost verification, scheduled to begin on September 26, 2005, in Galati, Romania. The Department received additional correspondence from Mittal Steel on September 23, 2005, notifying the Department that, with the exception of case briefs and rebuttals and any hearing held in this administrative review, Mittal Steel would no longer “actively participate” in the proceeding. See Letter from Mittal Steel to the Secretary of Commerce, dated September 23, 2005. Additionally, Mittal Steel requested that the Department remove all of the company's business proprietary data submitted during the course of this review and return or destroy that data. On October 13, 2005, the Department issued a letter to Mittal Steel, indicating that the Department was in the process of removing all business proprietary information of Mittal Steel that was currently on the record of this review and that the Department had instructed all parties to the proceeding to remove and certify the destruction of Mittal Steel's proprietary information. On October 14, 2005, the Department notified Mittal Steel that all business proprietary data submitted during the course of this review had been destroyed and that all parties to this proceeding had also confirmed the destruction of Mittal Steel's business proprietary data in their possession. See Memorandum from Patrick Edwards to the File, dated October 14, 2005. On October 18, 2005, the Department received correspondence from MEI, also requesting the removal of business proprietary information that it had submitted on the record during the course of this administrative review. Accordingly, the Department then removed all of MEI's business proprietary data from the record.

On October 17, 2005, the Department transferred to the record of this administrative review certain documentation from the immediately preceding administrative review (i.e., the 2002-2003 Administrative Review of Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania) to facilitate the Department's analysis for these final results. See Memorandum to the File from Patrick Edwards, Case Analyst, regarding Transfer of Information to Record, dated October 17, 2005. On October 19, 2005, Mittal Steel submitted a letter to the Department, objecting to the transfer of documentation from the 2002-2003 administrative review to the record of this proceeding, stating that the Department's actions resulted in Nucor's access to Mittal Steel's 2002-2003 business proprietary data, which the Department had determined in the immediately preceding review that Nucor's counsel was not entitled to access. See Letter from Mittal Steel to the Secretary of Commerce, dated October 19, 2005. Mittal Steel asserts that its business proprietary data from the immediately preceding review is currently part of the administrative record filed with the Court of International Trade in the ongoing litigation in Mittal Steel Galati SA v. United States, Court No. 05-00311. Thus, Mittal Steel requested that the Department deny Nucor access to the business proprietary information transferred to the record of this review, because Nucor was denied APO access to the data in the immediately preceding review because Nucor filed an untimely request for an administrative protective order (“APO”). See Letter from Ann Sebastian, Director APO Unit, Import Administration to Alan H. Price, Wiley, Rein & Fielding, dated November 12, 2004.

On October 20, 2005, Nucor filed a response to Mittal Steel's letter of October 19, 2005, stating that it is entitled to access the business proprietary information transferred to the record of this administrative review, as the 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 reviews are two separate proceedings, the latter of which Nucor's APO application was approved by the Department and, as such, is entitled to access all APO information which the Department places on the record as an “authorized applicant”. See Letter from Nucor Corporation to the Secretary of Commerce, dated October 20, 2005. On October 24, 2005, the Department sent a letter to counsel for Mittal Steel, stating that, as authorized applicants under the APO, counsel for Nucor is entitled to receive access to all business proprietary information presented to or obtained by the Department in this segment of the proceeding under 19 CFR sections 351.305 and 351.306. See Letter from Anne M. Sebastian, Director, APO Unit, Import Administration, to John Gurley, Arent Fox PLLC, dated October 24, 2005.

On October 28, 2005, we received a case brief from Mittal Steel. We received a case brief from Nucor and IPSCO Steel Inc., (“IPSCO”) (collectively, “petitioners”) on October 28, 2005. We received rebuttal briefs from IPSCO and Mittal Steel on November 2, 2005. Mittal Steel had requested a public hearing in this review, but withdrew its request on November 1, 2005. Therefore, no public hearing was held.

On December 28, 2005, because it was not practicable to complete the final results within the specified time period, the Department extended the deadline for the completion of the final results by thirty days. See Notice of Extension of Final Results of the 2003-2004 Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Cut-to-Length Plate from Romania, 70 FR 76764 (December 28, 2005).

Final Partial Rescission

In our preliminary results, we announced our determination to rescind the review with respect to Metanef, MINMET, and COST, because these parties had no entries or shipments of cut-to-length plate from Romania during the POR. We additionally announced our preliminary determination to rescind the review with respect to CSR, as petitioners withdrew their request for review with regard to this company. See Preliminary Results. We have received no new information or evidence of changed circumstances that would cause the Department to reconsider that determination. Therefore, we are rescinding the administrative review with respect to Metanef, MINMENT, CSR and COST.

Scope of the Order

The products covered by this order include hot-rolled carbon steel universal mill plates (i.e., flat-rolled products rolled on four faces or in a closed box pass, of a width exceeding 150 millimeters but not exceeding 1,250 millimeters and of a thickness of not less than 4 millimeters, not in coil and without patterns in relief), of rectangular shape, neither clad, plated nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances; and certain hot-rolled carbon steel flat-rolled products in straight lengths, of rectangular shape, hot rolled, neither clad, plated, nor coated with metal, whether or not painted, varnished, or coated with plastics or other nonmetallic substances, 4.75 millimeters or more in thickness and of a width which exceeds 150 millimeters and measures at least twice the thickness, as currently classifiable in the HTS under item numbers 7208.31.0000, 7208.32.0000, 7208.33.1000, 7208.33.5000, 7208.41.0000, 7208.42.0000, 7208.43.0000, 7208.90.0000, 7210.70.3000, 7210.90.9000, 7211.11.0000, 7211.12.0000, 7211.21.0000, 7211.22.0045, 7211.90.0000, 7212.40.1000, 7212.40.5000, and 7212.50.0000. Included under this order are flat-rolled products of nonrectangular cross-section where such cross-section is achieved subsequent to the rolling process (i.e., products which have been “worked after rolling”)—for example, products which have been bevelled or rounded at the edges. Excluded from this review is grade X-70 plate. These HTS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description remains dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

The issues raised in the case briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Stephen Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary (“Decision Memorandum”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues addressed in the Decision Memorandum is appended to this notice. The Decision Memorandum is on file in the Central Records Unit in Room B-099 of the main Commerce building, and can also be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Facts Available

Pursuant to sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) and 776(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department finds that the application of adverse facts available (“AFA”) is warranted with regard to Mittal Steel and MEI because both companies decided to terminate their participation in this review and removed their business proprietary information from the record, and thus have significantly impeded the Department's completion of the review. See Letter from Mittal Steel to the Secretary of Commerce, dated September 23, 2005. In addition, the Department finds that those companies have failed to cooperate to the best of their abilities, within the meaning of section 776(b) of the Act, as discussed further below.

Section 776(a)(2) of the Act provides that, if an interested party or any other person (A) withholds information that has been requested by the administering authority or the Commission under this title, (B) fails to provide such information by the deadlines for submission of the information or in the form and manner requested, subject to subsections (c)(1) and (e) of section 782, (C) significantly impedes a proceeding under this title, or (D) provides such information but the information cannot be verified as provided in section 782(i), the administering authority and the Commission shall, subject to section 782(d), use the facts otherwise available in reaching the applicable determination under this title. Section 782(d) of the Act provides that if a response to a request for information does not comply with the request, the Department shall promptly notify the respondent of the nature of the deficiency and shall, to the extent practicable, provide an opportunity to remedy or explain the deficiency in light of the time limits established for the completion of the review. Furthermore, section 776(b) of the Act provides that, if a party has failed to act to the best of its ability to comply with the Department's request for information, the Department may apply an adverse inference. See also, the Statement of Administrative Action (“SAA”), accompanying the URAA, H.R. Rp. No. 316, 103rd Cong., 2d Sess. 870.

We find that facts available is warranted in accordance with section 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act, because Mittal Steel and MEI unilaterally decided to terminate their participation in this review, and both companies removed their business proprietary information submitted through their responses to the Department's antidumping duty questionnaires from the record information necessary to calculate a margin for these companies. As such, the Department is significantly impeded in calculating a margin because critical information regarding Mittal Steel and MEI's sales and quantities of sales in the home market and in the United States are only obtainable from the companies' questionnaire responses. Therefore, an accurate margin for these companies cannot be determined. Section 782(d) of the Act does not apply in this situation because Mittal Steel and MEI have terminated their participation in the review. Thus, we are using facts available, in accordance with sections 776(a)(2)(A) and (C) of the Act.

Section 776(b) of the Act provides that, in selecting from among the facts available, the Department may use an inference that is adverse to the interests of the respondent, if it determines that a party has failed to cooperate to the best of its ability. The Department finds that Mittal Steel and MEI have failed to cooperate to the best of their abilities because these companies could comply with the Department's request for information as indicated by the completed questionnaire responses that Mittal Steel and MEI submitted on the record before they withdrew these responses. Mittal Steel and MEI withdrew all of their business proprietary questionnaire responses and, thus, gave insufficient attention to their statutory duty to provide the Department with complete and accurate information. For all of the aforementioned reasons, the Department finds that Mittal Steel and MEI failed to cooperate to the best of their abilities. For a detailed analysis of the Department's decision to apply AFA, see Memorandum from John Drury and Patrick Edwards, Case Analysts, to the File: Final Results in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate form Romania: Total Adverse Facts Available and Corroboration Memorandum for Company Rate, dated February 6, 2006.

Therefore, in selecting from the facts available, the Department determines that an adverse inference is warranted. In accordance with section 776(b) of the Act, because of Mittal Steel and MEI's removal of all business proprietary data upon which any accurate margin could be calculated, the Department is applying total AFA to both Mittal Steel and MEI. For purposes of these final results, the Department will apply as AFA the current “all-others” rate of 75.04 percent, which is based on the final determination of the less-than-fair value investigation and is also the highest rate from any prior segment of this proceeding. See Final Determination of Sales at Less-Than-Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania, 58 FR 37209 (July 9, 1993).

We note that, in making adverse inferences, the SAA authorizes the Department to consider the extent to which a party may benefit from its own lack of cooperation. See SAA at 870. For purposes of our final results, we have carefully analyzed the rates contained in the petition and the rates in the less-than-fair-value (“LTFV”) investigation. Given that the 75.04 percent rate is the highest rate from any prior segment of this proceeding, and that Mittal Steel's calculated dumping margin from the Preliminary Results was 48.90 percent, we find that the 75.04 percent rate will prevent Mittal Steel or MEI from benefiting from its lack of cooperation in this administrative review. For a detailed analysis of the Department's corroboration of the assigned adverse-facts-available rate and further detail on the Department's determination to apply AFA to these companies, see Final Determination in the Antidumping Duty Administrative Review of Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania: Total Adverse Facts Available Corroboration Memorandum for Company Rate, from John Drury and Patrick Edwards, Case Analysts, to the File, dated February 6, 2006 (“Corroboration Memorandum”).

Corroboration of Secondary Information Used as AFA

Section 776(c) of the Act provides that when the Department relies on the facts otherwise available and relies on “secondary information,” the Department shall, to the extent practicable, corroborate that information from independent sources reasonably at the Department's disposal. The SAA states that “corroborate” means to determine that the information used has probative value. See SAA at 870. The Department has determined that to have probative value, information must be reliable and relevant. See Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished from Japan, 61 FR 57391, 57392 (November 6, 1996). The SAA also states that independent sources used to corroborate such evidence may include, for example, published price lists, official import statistics and Customs data, and information obtained from interested parties during the particular investigation. See Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: High and Ultra-High Voltage Ceramic Station Post insulators from Japan, 68 FR 35627 (June 16, 2003); and Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Live Swine from Canada, 70 FR 12181 (March 11, 2005).

The reliability of the AFA rate was determined by the calculation of the “Romania-wide” rate in the original LTFV investigation, and on the most appropriate surrogate value information available to the Department in the investigation, as well as information gathered by the Department during the present administrative review. Furthermore, the calculation of the final margins and the “Romania-wide” rate from the investigation was subject to comment from interested parties in the proceeding. See Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Romania, 58 FR 37209 (July 9, 1993). Moreover, this rate was used in the immediately preceding administrative review as the “all others” rate and no interested party challenged the reliability of this rate. As discussed further in the Corroboration Memorandum, the Department has received no information to date that warrants revisiting the issue of the reliability of the “all-others” rate calculation itself. Thus, the Department finds that the margin calculated in the LTFV investigation is reliable.

With respect to the relevance aspect of corroboration, the Department will consider information reasonably at its disposal to determine whether a margin continues to have relevance. Where circumstances indicate that the selected margin is not appropriate as AFA, the Department will disregard the margin and determine an appropriate margin. For example, in Fresh Cut Flowers from Mexico: Final Results of Antidumping Administrative Review, 61 FR 6812 (February 22, 1996), the Department disregarded the highest margin in that case as adverse best information available (the predecessor to facts available) because the margin was based on another company's uncharacteristic business expense resulting in an unusually high margin. Similarly, the Department does not apply a margin that has been discredited. See D&L Supply Co. v. United States, 113 F. 3d 1220, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (the Department will not use a margin that has been judicially invalidated). None of these unusual circumstances are present here. As there is no information on the record of this review that indicates that this rate is not relevant as AFA for Mittal Steel or MEI, we determine that this rate has probative value. Accordingly, we determine that the highest rate determined in any segment of this administrative proceeding (i.e., 75.04 percent) is in accord with section 776(c) of the Act's requirement that secondary information be corroborated (i.e., that it have probative value). For further explanation of the Department's corroboration methodology in this review, see Corroboration Memorandum.

Final Results of Review

As a result of our review, we determine that the following margin based on AFA exists for the period of August 1, 2003, through July 31, 2004:

ProducerMargin

(percentage)

Mittal Steel Galati S.A.75.04Metalexportimport S.A.75.04Assessment

The Department shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. For Mittal Steel and MEI, we will instruct CBP to liquidate entries at the rate indicated above. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to the CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review.

Cash Deposit Requirements

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of certain cut-to-length plate from Romania entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results, as provided by section 751(a) of the Act: (1) for the company covered by this review, the cash deposit rate will be the rate listed above; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in the investigation, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate from the final determination; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or the investigation, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the producer of the merchandise for the most recent period; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the producer is a firm covered in this review or the investigation, the cash deposit rate will be 75.04 percent, the “Romania-wide” rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402 (f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred, and in the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This notice also is the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (“APO”) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act.

On December 29, 2005, the United States Court of International Trade (“Court”) sustained the final remand determination made by the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) pursuant to the Court's remand of the final results of the administrative review of freshwater crawfish tail meat from the People's Republic of China. See Crawfish Processors Alliance v. United States, Consol. Ct. No. 02-00376, Slip Op. 05-166 (Ct. Int'l Trade December 29, 2005) (“CPA Remand III”). This case arises out of the Departments's Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review 67 FR 19546 (April 22, 2002) (“Final Results”). The final judgment in this case was not in harmony with the Department's April 2002 Final Results.

In Crawfish Processors Alliance v. United States, 395 F. Supp. 2d 1330 (CIT 2005), the Court remanded the Department's determination in the final results to collapse Jiangsu Hilong International Trade Co., Ltd. (“Jiangsu”) and Ningbo Nanlian Frozen Foods Company, Ltd. (“Nanlian”) with instructions to either: (1) (a) Explain with specificity how the interactions between Jiangsu and Ningbo indicate that one company has control over the other or both, especially how the invoices from Jiangsu to Hontex Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Louisiana Packing Company created a business relationship with Nanlian during the September 1, 1999, to August 31, 2000, period of review (“99/00 POR”), and (b) explain with specificity how Mr. Wei's contacts with Jiangsu and Nanlian demonstrate control of either company on behalf of the other or control over both; and (2) if the Department is unable to provide substantial evidence supporting its collapsing decision, then it is to treat Jiangsu and Nanlian as unaffiliated entities and assign separate company specific antidumping duty margins using verified information on the record.

On November 25, 2005, the Department issued the draft results of redetermination pursuant to remand (“draft results”) for comment by interested parties. No party filed comments in response to the Department's draft results of redetermination pursuant to remand. On December 9, 2005, the Department issued its final results of redetermination pursuant to remand to the Court. The remand redetermination explained that without the presumption of affiliation between Jiangsu and Nanlian from the prior administrative reviews, the invoices and Mr. Wei's contacts between the two companies were insufficient to sustain the determination to collapse the two companies. Therefore, the Department stated that it would treat Jiangsu and Nanlian as unaffiliated entities. Accordingly, Nanlian's antidumping duty margin for the 99/00 POR is 62.51 percent. The Department did not initiate a review of Jiangsu during the period of review. Thus, the Department did not determine an antidumping duty margin for Jiangsu for the 99/00 POR.

On December 29, 2005, the Court found that the Department complied with the Court's remand order and sustained the Department's remand redetermination. See CPA Remand III.

Timken Notice

In its decision in Timken Co., v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (“Timken”), the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that, pursuant to section 516A(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the Department must publish a notice of a court decision that is not “in harmony” with a Department determination, and must suspend liquidation of entries pending a “conclusive” court decision. The Court's decision in CPA Remand III on December 29, 2005, constitutes a final decision of that court that is not in harmony with the Department's final results in the 99/00 administrative review of freshwater crawfish tail meat. This notice is published in fulfillment of the publication requirements of Timken. Accordingly, the Department will continue the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise pending the expiration of the period of appeal, or, if appealed, upon a final and conclusive court decision.

This notice is issued and published in accordance with section 516A(c)(1) of the Act.

On October 7, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published the preliminary results of its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 70 FR 58672 (“Preliminary Results”). Based on our analysis of the record, including factual information obtained since the preliminary results, we have made changes to the margin calculation for Yancheng Hi-King. Therefore, the final results differ from the preliminary results. See Final Results of Review section, below.

On October 7, 2005, the Department published the preliminary results of its administrative review of the antidumping duty order on freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC. See Preliminary Results. The administrative review covers four exporters or producer/exporters: (1) Yancheng Hi-King Agriculture Developing Co., Ltd. (“Yancheng Hi-King”); (2) Yancheng Yaou Seafood Co., Ltd. (“Yancheng Yaou”)1; (3) China Kingdom International (“China Kingdom”); and (4) Weishan Zhenyu Foodstuff Co., Ltd. (“Weishan Zhenyu”), and exports of the subject merchandise to the United States during the period September 1, 2003, through August 31, 2004.

1 The Department determined that Yancheng Yaou and Qingdao Zhengri Seafood Co., Ltd. (“Qingdao Zhengri”) should be treated as a single entity in the 99/00 administrative review. See Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China; Notice of Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, and Final Partial Rescission of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 67 FR 19546, (April 22, 2002). As the Department was not presented with information sufficient to demonstrate that the companies should no longer be treated as a single entity, consistent with the Department's practice, the Department continued to treat Yancheng Yaou and Qingdao Zhengri as a single entity in subsequent reviews, including the instant review.

We invited parties to comment on our Preliminary Results, and received a case brief from the Crawfish Processors Alliance (“petitioners”), the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry, and Bob Odom, Commissioner of Agriculture (collectively, “Domestic Parties”), on November 7, 2005. We also received a rebuttal case brief from Yancheng Hi-King on November 14, 2005. On December 7, 2005, we held a public hearing in this review.

Scope of Order

The product covered by this antidumping duty order is freshwater crawfish tail meat, in all its forms (whether washed or with fat on, whether purged or unpurged), grades, and sizes; whether frozen, fresh, or chilled; and regardless of how it is packed, preserved, or prepared. Excluded from the scope of the order are live crawfish and other whole crawfish, whether boiled, frozen, fresh, or chilled. Also excluded are saltwater crawfish of any type, and parts thereof. Freshwater crawfish tail meat is currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers 1605.40.10.10 and 1605.40.10.90, which are the HTSUS numbers for prepared foodstuffs, indicating peeled crawfish tail meat and other, as introduced by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) in 2000, and HTSUS numbers 0306.19.00.10 and 0306.29.00.00, which are reserved for fish and crustaceans in general. The HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes only. The written description of the scope of this order is dispositive.

Separate Rates

Yancheng Hi-King, Yancheng Yaou, China Kingdom and Weishan Zhenyu have requested separate, company-specific antidumping duty rates. In our preliminary results, we found that Yancheng Hi-King, China Kingdom, and Weishan Zhenyu had met the criteria for the application of a separate antidumping duty rate. See Preliminary Results. Also in the Preliminary Results, as Yancheng Yaou withdrew from verification, and filed a letter stating that it would no longer participate in the current administrative review, the Department determined that Yancheng Yaou had not established its eligibility for a separate rate. Id. We have not received any information since the Preliminary Results with respect to Yancheng Hi-King, Yancheng Yaou, China Kingdom and Weishan Zhenyu which would warrant reconsideration of our separate-rates determinations with respect to these companies.

Analysis of Comments Received

All issues raised in the briefs are addressed in the “Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Final Results in the 2003/2004 Administrative Review of Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, to David Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration,” dated

February 6, 2006 (“Issues and Decision Memorandum”), which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues raised, all of which are in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, is attached to this notice as Appendix I. Parties can find a complete discussion of all issues raised in the briefs and the corresponding recommendations in this public memorandum on file in the Central Records Unit (“CRU”), room B-099 of the Herbert H. Hoover Building. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov. The paper copy and electronic version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

Based on the comments received from the interested parties, we have made changes to the margin calculation for Yancheng Hi-King. For the final results, we have updated the surrogate value for whole crawfish, based on definitive, final Spanish import statistics. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum at Comment 3.

For details on the calculation of the antidumping duty margin for Yancheng Hi-King, see “Yancheng Hi-King Analysis Memorandum for the Final Results of Administrative Review on Freshwater Crawfish Tail Meat from the People's Republic of China” (February 6, 2006). A public version of this memorandum is on file in the CRU.

Assessment of Antidumping Duties

The Department will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of the final results of this review. For assessment purposes for companies with a calculated rate, where possible, the Department calculated importer-specific assessment rates for freshwater crawfish tail meat from the PRC on a per-unit basis. Specifically, the Department divided the total dumping margins (calculated as the difference between normal value and export price) for each importer by the total quantity of subject merchandise sold to that importer during the POR to calculate a per-unit assessment amount. The Department will direct CBP to assess importer-specific assessment rates based on the resulting per-unit (i.e., per-kilogram) rates by the weight in kilograms of each entry of the subject merchandise during the POR.

Cash Deposits

The following cash-deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results for shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”): (1) For subject merchandise exported by China Kingdom and Weishan Zhenyu, the cash-deposit rate will be equal to 223.01 percent; (2) for subject merchandise exported by Yancheng Hi-King, we will establish a per-kilogram cash deposit rate which will be equivalent to the company-specific weighted-average margin established in this review; (3) the cash-deposit rate for PRC exporters who received a separate rate in a prior segment of the proceeding will continue to be the rate assigned in that segment of the proceeding; (4) for all other PRC exporters of subject merchandise which have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate (including Yancheng Yaou2), the cash-deposit rate will be the PRC-wide rate of 223.01 percent; (5) for all non-PRC exporters of subject merchandise, the cash-deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the PRC producer that supplied that exporter.

2 As Yancheng Yaou withdrew from verification and from the administrative review, the Department will continue to treat Yancheng Yaou and Qingdao Zhengri as a single entity.

These deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

Notification to Importers

This notice serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This administrative review and notice is in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).

Pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), the International Trade Commission (ITC), in its sunset review, determined that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) order on certain internal combustion forklift trucks (forklifts) from Japan would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. See Internal Combustion Industrial Forklift Trucks from Japan, 71 FR 5070 (January, 31 2006) (ITC Determination). Therefore, pursuant to section 751(d)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(1)(iii), the Department is revoking the AD order on forklifts from Japan.

On June 7, 1988, the Department published its AD order and final amended determination on forklifts from Japan. See Antidumping Duty Order and Amendment to Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value; Certain Internal-Combustion, Industrial Forklift Trucks From Japan, 53 FR 20882 (June 7, 1988). In the amended final determination the Department found margins ranging from 13.65 - 56.81 percent for the selected respondents and 39.45 percent for “all other” manufacturers/producers/exporters of forklifts from Japan. After an affirmative determination by the ITC in the first sunset review of forklifts from Japan, on June 2, 2000, the Department published the notice of continuation of the order. See Continuation of Antidumping Duty Orders and Countervailing Duty Order: Internal-Combustion, Industrial Forklift Trucks From Japan, 65 FR 35323.

On March 1, 2005, the Department initiated, and the ITC instituted, sunset reviews of the AD order on forklifts from Japan. See Initiation of Five-year (Sunset) Reviews, 70 FR 9919. As a result of its review, the Department found that revocation of the AD order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and notified the ITC of the dumping rate likely to prevail if the AD order were revoked. See Internal-Combustion Forklift Trucks from Japan; Final Results of the Expedited Sunset Review of the Antidumping Duty Order, 70 FR 58373 (October 6, 2005).

On January 26, 2006, the ITC determined, pursuant to section 752 of the Act, that revocation of the AD order on forklifts from Japan would not be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States within a reasonably foreseeable time. See ITC Determination and USITC Publication 3831 (January 2006), entitled Internal-Combustion Forklift Trucks from Japan. Inv. No. 731-TA-377 (Second Review).

Scope of the Order

The products covered by this order are certain internal-combustion, industrial forklift trucks, with lifting capacity of 2,000 to 15,000 lbs. Imports of these products were classified under item numbers 692.4025, 692.4030, and 692.4070 of the Tariff Schedules of the United States Annotated (TSUSA) and are currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) item numbers 8427.20.00, 8427.90.00, and 8431.20.00. Although the HTSUS item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description remains dispositive.

The products covered by this order are further described as follows: Assembled, not assembled, and less than complete, finished and not finished, operator-riding forklift trucks powered by gasoline, propane, or diesel fuel internal-combustion engines of off-the-highway types used in factories, warehouses, or transportation terminals for short-distance transport, towing, or handling of articles. Less than complete forklift trucks are defined as imports which include a frame by itself or a frame assembled with one or more component parts. Component parts of the subject forklift trucks which are not assembled with a frame are not covered by this order.

Products not covered by this order are genuinely used forklifts. For the purposes of this antidumping duty order, we consider any forklift to be used if, at the time of entry into the United States, the importer can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that the forklift was manufactured in a calendar year at least three years prior to the year of entry into the United States. The importer must show documentation from industrial publications that reconcile the serial number and year of manufacture of the forklift. If the calendar year of manufacture is at least three years prior to its year of entry into the United States, it will not be subject to the suspension of liquidation or any assessment of antidumping duties. For example, if a forklift is entered or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption in June 1988 and if the importer demonstrates through industrial publications that the forklift was manufactured in or before calendar year 1985, that forklift will not be covered by this order.

Determination

As a result of the determination by the ITC that revocation of this AD order is not likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the United States, the Department, pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act, is revoking the AD order on forklifts from Japan. Pursuant to section 751(c)(6)(A)(iii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(i)(2)(ii), the effective date of revocation is June 2, 2005 (i.e., the fifth anniversary of the date of publication in the Federal Register of the notice of continuation of the AD order). The Department will notify CBP to discontinue suspension of liquidation and collection of cash deposits on entries of the subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse on or after June 2, 2005, the effective date of revocation of the AD order. The Department will complete any pending administrative reviews of this order and will conduct administrative reviews of subject merchandise entered prior to the effective date of revocation in response to appropriately filed requests for review.

This five-year (sunset) review and notice are in accordance with section 751(d)(2) and published pursuant to section 777(i)(1) of the Act.

On October 6, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“Department”) published the initiation of the antidumping duty investigations of certain lined paper products from India, Indonesia and the People's Republic of China. See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: Certain Lined Paper Products from India, Indonesia and the People's Republic of China, 70 FR 58374 (October 6, 2005). The notice of initiation stated that we would make our preliminary determinations for these antidumping duty investigations no later than 140 days after the date of issuance of the initiation. Currently, the preliminary determinations are due February 16, 2006.

On January 23, 2006, the Association of American School Paper Suppliers, and its individual members (“Petitioner”), made a timely request pursuant to 19 CFR §351.205(e) for a 30-day postponement of the preliminary determinations. Petitioner requested postponement of the preliminary determinations because it will provide the Department additional time to review submitted questionnaire responses and questionnaire responses not yet received by the Department.

Under section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), if Petitioner makes a timely request for a postponement of the preliminary determination, the Department may postpone the preliminary determination under subsection (b)(1) until no later than the 190th day after the initiation of the investigation.

Therefore, for reasons identified by petitioner, we are postponing the preliminary determinations under section 733(c)(1)(A) of the Act by 30 days to March 18, 2006. Because March 18, 2006, falls on a Saturday, the preliminary determinations will be due by March 20, 2006, the next business day. Pursuant to 735(a) of the Act, the deadline for the final determinations will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determinations, or if extended, up to 135 days after the date of publication of the preliminary determinations in the Federal Register.

This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 733(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(i).

On October 7, 2005, the Department of Commerce (the Department) published the preliminary results of its third administrative review of the antidumping duty order on steel concrete reinforcing bars (rebar) from Latvia. The review covers one producer of the subject merchandise. The period of review (POR) is September 1, 2003, through August 31, 2004. Based on our analysis of comments received, these final results differ from the preliminary results. The final results are listed below in the Final Results of Review section.

On October 7, 2005, the Department published in the Federal Register the preliminary results of the third administrative review of the antidumping duty order on rebar from Latvia. See Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Steel Concrete Reinforcing Bars from Latvia, 70 FR 58687 (October 7, 2005) (Preliminary Results). We invited parties to comment on the Preliminary Results. On November 14, 2005, we received a case brief from the sole respondent, Joint Stock Company Liepajas Metalurgs (LM). We received a rebuttal brief from the Rebar Trade Action Coalition (RTAC) and its individual members, the petitioners in the proceeding, on November 21, 2005. At the request of the respondent, we held a public hearing on December 16, 2005.

Scope of the Order

The product covered by this order is all steel concrete reinforcing bars sold in straight lengths, currently classifiable in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) under item numbers 7214.20.00, 7228.30.8050, 7222.11.0050, 7222.30.0000, 7228.60.6000, 7228.20.1000, or any other tariff item number. Specifically excluded are plain rounds (i.e., non-deformed or smooth bars) and rebar that has been further processed through bending or coating. HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes. The written description of the scope of the order is dispositive.

Analysis of Comments Received

The issues raised in the briefs by parties to this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum to David M. Spooner, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, from Stephen J. Claeys, Deputy Assistant Secretary (Decision Memorandum), dated February 3, 2006, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the issues addressed in the Decision Memorandum is appended to this notice. The Decision Memorandum is on file in Room B-099 of the main Department building, and can also be accessed directly on the Web at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/frn/index.html. The paper copy and electronic version of the Decision Memorandum are identical in content.

Changes Since the Preliminary Results

Based on our analysis of comments received, we adjusted the calculation methodology used in the Preliminary Results. For the date of sale in the U.S. market, we used the date of final amendment to the contract addendum as the date of sale for all sales. For the home market imputed credit expense calculation, we used interest rates published by the Bank of Latvia for loans to domestic enterprises and households as a surrogate interest rate. For the U.S. imputed credit expense calculation, we used short-term interest rates published by the Federal Reserve for commercial and industrial loans as a surrogate interest rate. These adjustments are discussed in detail in the Decision Memorandum.

Final Results of Review

As a result of our review, we determine that the following weighted-average margin exists for the period of September 1, 2003, through August 31, 2004:

The Department will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries, pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b). The Department calculated importer-specific duty assessment rates on the basis of the ratio of the total amount of antidumping duties calculated for the examined sales to the total entered value of the examined sales for that importer. Where the assessment rate is above de minimis, we will instruct CBP to assess duties on all entries of subject merchandise by that importer. The Department will issue appropriate assessment instructions directly to CBP within 15 days of publication of these final results of review.

Cash Deposits

Furthermore, the following deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of rebar from Latvia entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of these final results, as provided by section 751(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act): (1) for LM, the cash deposit rate will be 5.24 percent; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a previous segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the company-specific rate published in the most recent final results in which that producer or exporter participated; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review or in any previous segment of this proceeding, but the producer is, the cash deposit rate will be that established for the producer of the merchandise in these final results of review or in the most recent final results in which that producer participated; and (4) if neither the exporter nor the producer is a firm covered in this review or in any previous segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will be 17.21 percent, the “All Others” rate established in the less-than-fair-value investigation. These deposit requirements shall remain in effect until publication of the final results of the next administrative review.

This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred, and in the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.

This notice also is the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

We are issuing and publishing these results and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.

On November 1, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the Federal Register the notice of initiation of its sunset reviews of the countervailing duty orders on cut-to-length carbon steel plate (“CTL steel plate”) from Belgium, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (“UK”). See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews, 70 FR 65884 (November 1, 2005). On November 16, 2005, the domestic interested parties IPSCO Steel Inc., Mittal Steel USA ISG, Inc., Nucor Corporation, Oregon Steel Mills, Inc., the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, and AFL-CIO-CLC (“USW”), submitted letters indicating their intent to participate in the sunset reviews. On November 30, 2005 and December 1, 2005, domestic and respondent interested parties provided substantive responses as required under section 351.218 (d)(3)(i) of the Department's regulations. In all three cases, respondent interested parties (for Belgium, the Government of Belgium, the European Commission, Arcelor S.A., and Duferco Clabecq S.A.; for Sweden, the Government of Sweden, the European Commission, and SSAB Svenskt Stal; for the UK, the Government of the United Kingdom, the European Commission, Niagara LaSalle UK Limited, Spartan UK Ltd., and Corus Group, plc), included, in their substantive responses, arguments regarding the privatization or private-to-private changes in ownership which affected the respondent companies, and the effect of those transactions on previously bestowed subsidies.

On December 21, 2005, the Department determined that the participation of the respondent interested parties was adequate, and that it was appropriate to conduct full sunset reviews. See Memoranda to Steven J. Claeys: Adequacy Determination; Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Belgium; Adequacy Determination; Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Sweden; Adequacy Determination; Sunset Review of the Countervailing Duty Order on Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from the United Kingdom, dated December 21, 2005, and on file in the Central Records Unit, Room B 099 of the Department of Commerce building.

Extension of Time Limits for Preliminary and Final Results of Reviews

The Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), provides for the completion of a full sunset review within 240 days of the publication of the initiation notice. See section 751(c)(5)(A) of the Act. The U.S. Department of Commerce, (“the Department”) may extend the period of time for issuing the final results of an expedited sunset review if it determines that the review is extraordinarily complicated. This deadline may be extended by 90 days under section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Act if the Department determines that the review is extraordinarily complicated. We determine that these reviews are extraordinarily complicated under subsections 751(c)(5)(C) (i) (“there are a large number of issues”), (ii) (“the issues to be considered are complex”) and (v) (“it is a review of a transition order”) of the Act. Thus, it is appropriate to extend the final results of review by not more than 90 days. As such, our final results are now due on or before September 27, 2006.

With respect to the preliminary results of these sunset reviews, the Department's regulations, at section 351.218(f)(3), provide that the Department normally will issue its preliminary results in a full sunset review not later than 110 days after the initiation, in these cases, by February 19, 2006. However, due to the reasons cited above, we require additional time to conduct the analysis required for the preliminary results. Therefore, we are extending the deadline for the preliminary results of these full sunset reviews of the countervailing duty orders on cut-to-length carbon steel plate from Belgium, Sweden, and the United Kingdom to no later than July 14, 2006.

This notice is issued in accordance with sections 751(c)(5)(B) and 751(c)(5)(C) of the Act.

On November 1, 2005, the Department of Commerce (“the Department”) published in the Federal Register the notice of initiation of the sunset reviews of the countervailing duty orders on cut-to-length carbon steel plate (“CTL steel plate”) from Brazil and Spain. See Initiation of Five-year (“Sunset”) Reviews, 70 FR 65884 (November 1, 2005). Based on adequate responses from the domestic interested parties and inadequate responses from respondent interested parties, the Department is conducting expedited sunset reviews of these countervailing duty orders.

Extension of Time Limit for Final Results of Reviews

In accordance with section 751(c)(5)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”), the U.S. Department of Commerce, (“the Department”) may extend the period of time for issuing the final results of an expedited sunset review if it determines that the review is extraordinarily complicated. As set forth in subsection 751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act, the Department may treat a sunset review as extraordinarily complicated if it is a review of a transition order, as is the case in these proceedings. A transition order is defined as including countervailing duty orders which were in effect on January 1, 1995, the date on which the WTO Agreement's provisions on sunset reviews went into effect. Transition orders are treated as issued on January 1, 1995. See section 751(c)(6)(D) of the Act. The countervailing duty orders on CTL steel plate from Brazil and Spain were issued prior to January 1, 1995; as such they are deemed transition orders for purposes of the sunset proceeding.

In accordance with section 751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act, the Department has determined that the sunset reviews of the countervailing duty orders on CTL steel plate from Brazil and Spain require additional time for the Department to complete its analysis. The Department's final results of these sunset reviews were scheduled for completion on March 1, 2006. The Department will extend the deadlines in these proceedings by 90 days and, as a result, issue the final results of these expedited sunset reviews no later than May 30, 2006.

This notice is issued in accordance with sections 751(c)(5)(B) and 751(c)(5)(C)(v) of the Act.

On August 26, 2005, notice was published in the Federal Register (70 FR 50302) that a request for a scientific research permit to take loggerhead, green, Kemp's ridley, hawksbill, and leatherback sea turtles and shortnose sturgeon had been submitted by the above-named individual. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).

East Coast Observers, Inc. will conduct sea turtle abundance and relocation trawls in conjunction with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) dredging projects in waters of the Atlantic coast. Up to 350 loggerhead, 150 green, 150 Kemp's ridley, 10 hawksbill, and 10 leatherback sea turtles, and 10 shortnose sturgeon will be captured. Collected sea turtles will be handled, measured, flipper and passive integrated transponder (PIT) tagged, temporarily marked with a non-toxic marker, and released at a relocation site approximately three to five miles away from the dredge project. A single tissue sample may be taken from each individual turtle for genetic analysis. Collected shortnose sturgeon will be captured, handled have a barbel clip taken, and relocated to a safe area. The permit authorizes a total of up to 5 sea turtle (loggerhead, green, Kemp's ridley, and hawksbill in combination) incidental mortalities over the course of the permit. The permit is issued for five years.

Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit (1) was applied for in good faith, (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of any endangered or threatened species, and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.

On August 15, 2005, notice was published in the Federal Register (70 FR 47813) that a request for a scientific research permit to take loggerhead, Kemp's ridley, green, leatherback, and hawksbill sea turtles had been submitted by the applicant. The requested permit has been issued under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the regulations governing the taking, importing, and exporting of endangered and threatened species (50 CFR parts 222-226).

Researchers will capture up to 146 loggerhead (Caretta caretta), 48 Kemp's ridley (Lepidochelys kempii), 15 green (Chelonia mydas), 1 leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea), and 3 hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata), during the first year of the permit's five- year period. The permit authorizes research on up to 346 loggerhead, 48 Kemp's ridley, 15 green, 1 leatherback, and 3 hawksbill, sea turtles annually for the remaining four-years. Turtles will be captured by trawls, handled, blood sampled, measured, flipper and PIT tagged, photographed, and released. A subsample of animals will have barnacles and keratin removed from their shell, have cloacal samples taken, have laparoscopic and ultrasound exams, and have satellite transmitters attached. Up to 7 loggerhead and 1 leatherback may potentially be taken as accidental mortalities over the course of the entire permit. Additionally, up to 5 Kemp's ridley, green, or hawksbill sea turtles (combined total but no more than two of any given species) may potentially be taken as accidental mortalities over the course of the entire permit. The research will document size distributions, sex ratios, genetic contributions, and the health of sea turtles in coastal waters in the southeastern U.S. The research will take place in the waters from Winyah Bay, South Carolina to Cape Canaveral, Florida. The permit is issued for 5 years.

Issuance of this permit, as required by the ESA, was based on a finding that such permit (1) was applied for in good faith, (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of any endangered or threatened species, and (3) is consistent with the purposes and policies set forth in section 2 of the ESA.

The Department of Defense Historical Advisory Committee was renewed, effective January 23, 2006, in consonance with the public interest, and in accordance with the provisions of the “Federal Advisory Committee Act.”

The Committee shall provide the Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the Military Departments independent advice and recommendations on matters regarding the professional standards, historical methodology, program priorities, liaison with professional groups and institutions, and adequacy of resources of the various historical programs and associated activities of the Department of Defense.

The DoD Historical Advisory Committee will continue to be well balanced in terms of the interest groups represented and functions to be performed. The members include distinguished representatives from academia, current U.S. Government and private sector historians, authors and librarians, and retired general officers of general/flag rank.

Department of Defense (DOD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

ACTION:

Notice of request for public comments regarding an extension to an existing OMB clearance (9000-0147).

SUMMARY:

Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Secretariat will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a currently approved information collection requirement concerning pollution prevention and right-to-know information. This OMB clearance expires on June 30, 2006.

Public comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the FAR, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Executive Order 12856 of August 3, 1993, “Federal Compliance With Right-to-Know Laws and Pollution Prevention Requirements,” requires that Federal facilities comply with the planning and reporting requirements of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 and the Emergency Planning Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986. The executive order requires that contracts to be performed on a Federal facility provide for the contractor to supply to the Federal agency all information the Federal agency deems necessary to comply with these reporting requirements.

A meeting of the Board has been scheduled to execute the provisions of Chapter 56, Title 10, United States Code (10 U.S.C. 1114 et seq.). The Board shall review DoD actuarial methods and assumptions to be used in the valuation of benefits under DoD retiree health care programs for Medicare-eligible beneficiaries. Persons desiring to attend DoD Medicare-Eligible Retiree Health Care Board of Actuaries meeting, or make an oral presentation or submit a written statement for consideration at the meeting, must notify Margot Kaplan at 703-696-7404 by May 10, 2006. Notice of this meeting is required under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

Pursuant to the provisions of the “Government in the Sunshine Act” (5 U.S.C. 552b), notice is hereby given of the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's (Board) public hearing and meeting described below. The Board will conduct a public hearing and meeting pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 2286b and invites any interested persons or groups to present any comments, technical information, or data concerning safety issues related to the matters to be considered.

Time and Date of Meeting:

6 p.m., March 22, 2006.

Place:

Duane W. Smith Auditorium, 1400 Diamond Drive, Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544. Additionally, as a part of the Board's E-Government initiative, the hearing and meeting will be videotaped. A link to the videotape will be available on the Board's Web site (http://www.dnfsb.gov) following the hearing and meeting.

Status:

Open. While the Government in the Sunshine Act does not require that the scheduled hearing be conducted in a meeting, the Board has determined that an open meeting in this specific case furthers the public interests underlying both the Sunshine Act and the Board's enabling legislation.

Matters To Be Considered:

In this public hearing and meeting, the Board will examine the National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) plans and actions to follow through with improvements in safety management that were identified prior to and during the suspension and resumption of operations at Department of Energy (DOE) defense nuclear facilities at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). The Board anticipates testimony from the incumbent management and operation (M&O) contractor for LANL, the University of California, as well as from the contractor group, Los Alamos National Security, LLC (LANS), which was recently selected to assume the M&O contractor function in June 2006. Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Board is required, among other things, to review and evaluate the content and implementation of standards relating to the design, construction, operation, and decommissioning of DOE defense nuclear facilities, including all applicable DOE orders, regulations, and requirements pertaining to such facilities. The Board is also required to investigate any event or practice at DOE defense nuclear facilities which the Board determines has adversely affected, or may adversely affect, the health and safety of the workers and the public. In this March 22nd hearing and meeting, the Board will examine how NNSA and LANS will ensure adequate protection of the public health and safety, including that of the workers, and safety performance at LANL defense nuclear facilities. The Board will further explore health and safety-related corrective actions by NNSA and the incumbent and newly selected M&O contractors as those actions are implemented during and after the new M&O contract transition period. The Board will collect information needed to understand and address any health or safety concerns that may require Board action with respect to operations at LANL defense nuclear facilities. This will include, but is not limited to, presentations from NNSA and M&O contractor senior management officials and NNSA Los Alamos Site Office personnel. The public hearing portion of this proceeding is authorized by 42 U.S.C. 2286b.

Requests to speak at the hearing and meeting may be submitted in writing or by telephone. The Board asks that commentators describe the nature and scope of their oral presentation. Those who contact the Board prior to close of business on March 21, 2006, will be scheduled for time slots, beginning at approximately 8:30 p.m on the evening of the hearing and meeting. The Board will post a schedule for those speakers who have contacted the Board before the hearing. The posting will be made at the entrance to the Duane W. Smith Auditorium at the start of the 6 p.m. hearing and meeting.

Anyone who wishes to comment or provide technical information or data may do so in writing, either in lieu of, or in addition to, making an oral presentation. The Board Members may question presenters to the extent deemed appropriate. Documents will be accepted at the hearing and meeting or may be sent to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's Washington, DC, office. The Board will hold the record open until April 22, 2006, for the receipt of additional materials. A transcript of the hearing and meeting will be made available by the Board for inspection by the public at the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board's Washington office and at DOE's public reading room at the DOE Federal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585. The Board specifically reserves its right to further schedule and otherwise regulate the course of the hearing and meeting, to recess, reconvene, postpone, or adjourn the hearing and meeting, conduct further reviews, and otherwise exercise its powers under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.

The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of the Chief Information Officer invites comments on the submission for OMB review as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES:

Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 13, 2006.

Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes that notice containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites public comment.

Abstract: Vocational Rehabilitation Services data submitted on the RSA-2 by State VR agencies for each FY used by RSA to administer and manage the Title I Program; to analyze expenditures, evaluate program performance and identify problem areas.

Requests for copies of the information collection submission for OMB review may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the “Browse Pending Collections” link and by clicking on link number 2918. When you access the information collection, click on “Download Attachments “ to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also be electronically mailed to IC DocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to 202-245-6623. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request.

Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity requirements should be electronically mailed to the e-mail address IC DocketMgr@ed.gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

Take notice that on January 31, 2006, Cotton Valley Compression, LLC (Cotton Valley), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to become effective March 3, 2006:

Third Revised Sheet No. 2; Third Revised Sheet No. 4.

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Take notice that on February 1, 2006, East Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC (East Tennessee) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed on Appendix A to the filing, to become effective March 3, 2006.

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Take notice that on February 1, 2006, El Paso Natural Gas Company (EPNG), Post Office Box 1087, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80944, filed in Docket No. CP06-57-000, an application pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), for a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing EPNG to acquire, own, and operate approximately 36.72-miles of 24-inch lateral pipeline facilities, with appurtenances, located in Pinal and Maricopa Counties, Arizona from the Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District (SRP), all as more fully set forth in the request which is on file with Commission and open to public inspection.

There are two ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project. First, any person wishing to obtain legal status by becoming a party to the proceedings for this project should, on or before the comment date stated below, file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the NGA (18 CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties. A party must submit 14 copies of filings made with the Commission and must mail a copy to the applicant and to every other party in the proceeding. Only parties to the proceeding can ask for court review of Commission orders in the proceeding.

However, a person does not have to intervene in order to have comments considered. The second way to participate is by filing with the Secretary of the Commission, as soon as possible, an original and two copies of comments in support of or in opposition to this project. The Commission will consider these comments in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but the filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. The Commission's rules require that persons filing comments in opposition to the project provide copies of their protests only to the party or parties directly involved in the protest.

Persons who wish to comment only on the environmental review of this project should submit an original and two copies of their comments to the Secretary of the Commission. Environmental commenters will be placed on the Commission's environmental mailing list, will receive copies of the environmental documents, and will be notified of meetings associated with the Commission's environmental review process. Environmental commenters will not be required to serve copies of filed documents on all other parties. However, the non-party commenters will not receive copies of all documents filed by other parties or issued by the Commission (except for the mailing of environmental documents issued by the Commission) and will not have the right to seek court review of the Commission's final order.

Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site under the “e-Filing” link.

Take notice that on January 31, 2006, Entrega Gas Pipeline, LLC (Entrega) tendered for filing as part its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to be effective February 1, 2006:

Original Sheet No. 22; Original Sheet No. 23; Sheet Nos. 24-29.

Entrega states that the tendered tariff sheets propose to revise Entrega's Tariff to reflect a negotiated-rate contract.

Entrega stated that a copy of this filing has been served upon all parties to this proceeding, Entrega's customers, the Colorado Public Utilities Commission and the Wyoming Public Service Commission.

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Take notice that Joseph Kelliher, acting as Motions Commissioner, pursuant to Rule 715 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, has determined that Green Mountain Energy Company has failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances in accordance with Rule 715(c)(5) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure that would make prompt Commission review of the contested rulings necessary to prevent detriment to the public interest or irreparable harm to any person. Accordingly, the Chairman will not refer to the full Commission the January 27, 2006 interlocutory appeal filed by Green Mountain Energy Company.

Take notice that on January 31, 2006, National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation (National) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume No. 1, Eighty Sixth Revised Sheet No. 9, to become effective February 1, 2006.

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Take notice that on February 1, 2006, Saltville Gas Storage Company LLC (Saltville) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed in Appendix A of the filing, to be effective March 3, 2006.

Saltville states that copies of its filing have been served on all affected customers and interested state commissions.

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Take notice that on January 31, 2006, Southern Natural Gas Company tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to become effective November 1, 2005:

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Take notice that on January 20, 2006, Texas Gas Transmission, LLC (Texas Gas) tendered for filing a report, which compares its cash-out revenues with its cash-out costs incurred for the annual billing period November 1, 2004, through October 31, 2005, in accordance with its tariff. Texas Gas states that there is no rate impact to customers as a result of this filing.

Texas Gas states that copies of this filing have been served upon Texas Gas's jurisdictional customers and interested state commissions.

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Take notice that on January 27, 2006, TransColorado Gas Transmission Company (TransColorado) tendered for as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to be effective February 1, 2006:

First Revised Sheet No. 247B.02 Original Sheet No. 247B.03

TransColorado states that a copy of this filing has been served upon TransColorado's customers and affected state commissions.

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Take notice that on January 31, 2006, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to become effective March 1, 2006:

Transco states that copies of the filing are being mailed to its affected customers and interested state commissions.

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Take notice that on January 31, 2006, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation (Transco) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, Thirty-Third Revised Sheet No. 28, to become effective February 1, 2006.

Transco states that copies of the filing are being mailed to affected customers and interested state commissions.

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of § 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Wolverine Creek Goshen Interconnection, LLC (WCGI) and Wolverine Creek Energy, LLC (Wolverine Creek) filed a Common Facilities Agreement between WCGI and its owners Wolverine Creek, Ridgeline Airtricity Energy LLC and Goshen Phase II LLC. WCGI also requested waiver of various Commission regulations. In particular, WCGI requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by WCGI.

On January 13, 2006, as amended on January 27, 2006, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, Division of Tariffs and Market Development—South, granted the request for blanket approval under Part 34. The Director's order also stated that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the Federal Register establishing a period of time for the filing of protests. Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by WCGI should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2004).

Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to intervene or protest is February 13, 2006.

Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above, WCGI is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of WCGI, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate for such purposes.

Docket Nos. ER06-267-000, OA06-1-000 and TS06-4-000

The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by continued approval of WCGI's issuances of securities or assumptions of liability.

Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site under the “e-Filing” link. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings.

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5 p.m. eastern time on the specified comment date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding, interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.

The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the intervention or protests.

Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First St. NE., Washington, DC 20426.

The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Take notice that on January 27, 2006, the California Independent System Operator, pursuant to Commission's Order issued on February 2, 2005, is filing its refund report.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on February 17, 2006.

3. American Electric Power Service Corporation[Docket No. ER06-533-000]

Take notice that on January 24, 2006, American Electric Power Service Corporation, as agent for Kentucky Power Company (KPCo) tendered for filing an interconnection and local delivery service agreement between KPCo and the city of Olive Hill, Kentucky.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on February 14, 2006.

New England Power Company[Docket No. ER06-555-000]

Take notice that on January 27, 2006, New England Power Company (NEP) tendered for filing a Fourth Revised Service Agreement No. 6 between NEP and its affiliate, Granite State Electric Company.

Comment Date: 5 p.m. eastern time on February 17, 2006.

Standard Paragraph

Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.

The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.

This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the “eLibrary” link and is available for review in the Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an “eSubscription” link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of Equitrans, LP's (Equitrans) planned Big Sandy Pipeline Project located in Floyd, Johnson, Lawrence, and Carter County, Kentucky.

This notice announces the opening of the scoping process we will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies on the project. Your input will help the Commission staff determine which issues need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that the scoping period will close on March 24, 2006.

This notice is being sent to affected landowners; federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; other interested parties in this proceeding; and local libraries and newspapers. We encourage government representatives to notify their constituents of this planned project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.

If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted by a pipeline company representative about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The pipeline company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the project is approved by the Commission, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with state law.

A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility on My Land? What Do I Need to Know?” is available for viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the FERC's proceedings.

Summary of the Proposed Project

The project would consist of construction of about 60 miles of 20-inch-diameter pipeline. The pipeline would originate at the discharge of the existing Kentucky Hydrocarbon plant in Langley, Kentucky and terminate at Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company's Broad Run Lateral in Carter County, Kentucky. Equitrans would also construct one new 5,000 horsepower compressor station on the south end of the line. One pig launcher, one pig receiver, eight mainline valves, and one new metering and regulating station would also be constructed along the pipeline. Location maps depicting Equitrans' proposed facilities are provided in Appendix 1.1

1 The appendices referenced in this notice are not being printed in the Federal Register. Copies are available on the Commission's website (excluding maps) at the “eLibrary” link or from the Commission's Public Reference Room or call (202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary refer to the end of this notice. Copies of the appendices were sent to all those receiving this notice in the mail.

Equitrans indicates that these facilities are needed to provide much needed relief for the summer capacity constraints that are currently restricting gas production in the eastern Kentucky basin.

Equitrans anticipates filing an application with the FERC in June 2006. If approved, Equitrans would seek approval to begin construction by September 2006, with a proposed in-service date of April 1, 2007.

Land Requirements

Construction of the project facilities would disturb about 912 acres of land. Following construction, about 550 acres of the total would be retained for the operation of the pipeline and the aboveground facilities (compressor and meter stations). Equitrans currently proposes to use a nominal 100-foot-wide right-of-way (ROW) to construct its pipeline, with occasional increases in width for additional workspace at waterbody, wetland, road, and railroad crossings. Temporary extra workspaces may also be required in areas with site-specific constraints, such as side-slope construction. Other temporary land requirements would include areas needed for pipe storage and equipment yards. For operation of the pipeline facilities, Equitrans proposes a 50-foot-wide permanent ROW.

Currently Identified Environmental Issues

We have already identified several issues that we think deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the proposed facilities and information provided by Equitrans. This list of issues may be changed based on your comments and our analysis:

• The effect of blasting on groundwater;

• Difficult ROW restoration in areas of side slope construction; and

• Impact on visual resources due to vegetation clearing to create a new ROW.

The EA Process

The FERC will be the lead federal agency for the preparation of the EA. The document will satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Big Sandy Pipeline Project is in the preliminary design state.

For this project, the FERC staff has initiated its National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review prior to receiving the application. The purpose of the Commission's Pre-Filing Process is to involve interested stakeholders early in project planning and to identify and resolve issues before an application is filed with the FERC. A docket number (PF06-12-000) has been established to place information filed by Equitrans, and related documents issued by the Commission, into the public record. Once a formal application is filed with the FERC, a new docket number will be established.

NEPA requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this Notice of Intent, we are requesting public comments on the scope of the issues that should be addressed in the EA. We will consider all comments received during scoping in the preparation of the EA.

Our independent analysis and evaluation of the issues will be included in the EA. The EA will also include possible alternatives to the proposed project or portions of the project, and we will make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas of concern. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA may be published and mailed to federal, state, and local agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; other interested parties; affected landowners; Native American tribes; libraries, and newspapers; and the Commission's official service list for this proceeding. A 49-day comment period will be allotted for review of the EA. We will consider all comments submitted on the EA in any Commission Order that is issued for the project.

We are currently involved in discussions with other jurisdictional agencies to identify their issues and concerns. These agencies include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection—Division of Water, Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife, Kentucky Department of Natural Resources, Kentucky State Nature Preserve Commission, Kentucky Heritage Council, and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. By this notice, we are asking these and other federal, state, and local agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues to formally cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA. Agencies that would like to request cooperating status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided below.

Public Participation

You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the proposals. Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impact. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your comments are received in time and properly recorded:

• Label one copy of the comments for the attention of Gas Branch 1, DG2E;

• Reference Docket No. PF06-12-000 on the original and both copies; and

• Mail your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before March 24, 2006.

Please note that the Commission encourages electronic filing of comments. See 18 Code of Federal Regulations 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Internet Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the “eFiling” link and the link to the User's Guide. Prepare your submission in the same manner as you would if filing on paper and save it to a file on your hard drive. Before you can file comments you will need to create an account by clicking on “Login to File” and then “New User Account.” You will be asked to select the type of filing you are making. This filing is considered a “Comment on Filing.”

When Equitrans submits its application for authorization to construct and operate the Big Sandy Pipeline Project, the Commission will publish a Notice of Application in the Federal Register and will establish a deadline for interested persons to intervene in the proceeding. Because the Commission's Pre-Filing Process occurs before an application to begin a proceeding is officially filed, petitions to intervene during this process are premature and will not be accepted by the Commission.

Site Visit

On February 22 and 23, 2006, the OEP staff will conduct a pre-certification site visit of the planned Big Sandy Pipeline Project.

We will view the proposed route and variations that are being considered for the planned pipeline. Staff will view the area by helicopter on February 22, 2006, and by automobile and on foot on February 23, 2006. Representatives of Equitrans will be accompanying the OEP staff.

All interested parties may attend the site visit on February 23, 2006. Those planning to attend must provide their own transportation. If you are interested in attending the site visit, please meet us at 8 a.m. in the parking lot of the Paintsville Ramada Inn, 624 James Trimble Blvd, Paintsville, Kentucky.

You may have also been notified by Equitrans that it plans on holding two public open houses designed to provide opportunities to explain the project to stakeholders. OEP staff will be attending these events and will be available to answer questions about the NEPA process. FERC staff may utilize these open houses to determine the amount of stakeholder interest in the project to identify if a FERC sponsored public scoping meeting would be necessary in the project area at a later date. The location and dates for Equitrans' open houses are as follows:

The determination of whether to distribute the EA for public comment will be based on the response to this notice. If you are interested in receiving it, please return the Information Request (Appendix 2).

Availability of Additional Information

Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at 1-866-208 FERC (3372) or on the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov). Using the “eLibrary” link, select “General Search” from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range and “Docket Number” (i.e., PF06-12-000), and follow the instructions. Searches may also be done using the phrase “Big Sandy Pipeline” in the “Text Search” field. For assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can be reached at 1-866-208-3676, TTY (202) 502-8659, or at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov. The eLibrary link on the FERC Internet Web site also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

In addition, the FERC now offers a free service called eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. To register for this service, go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

Public meetings or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at http://www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related information.

You can also contact David J. Spigelmyer, Equitrans Representative, by phone at (412) 553-5739 or by e-mail at dspigelmyer@eqt.com with your specific concerns or comments regarding this project.

The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of Cameron LNG L.L.C.'s (Cameron) proposed Terminal Expansion Project involving construction and operation of facilities in Cameron Parish, Louisiana. This EA will be used by the Commission in its decision-making process to determine whether to authorize the project.

This notice announces the opening of the scoping process that the Commission will use to gather environmental input from the public and interested agencies on the Terminal Expansion Project. Your input will help determine which issues need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that the scoping period will close on March 6, 2006. Details on how to submit comments are provided in the Public Participation section of this notice.

This notice is being sent to affected landowners; federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. State and local government representatives are asked to notify their constituents of this planned project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.

With this notice, we 1 are asking other federal, state, local, and tribal agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues to cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA. Agencies that would like to request cooperating status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided below.

1 “We,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the Office of Energy Projects.

A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “A Guide to LNG—What All Citizens Should Know.” is available for viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including what is LNG and how is it transported.

Summary of the Proposed Project

Cameron proposes to expand its previously authorized Hackberry LNG Project in Cameron Parish, Louisiana (see map in Appendix A 2). The expansion would consist of adding one LNG storage tank with a net working capacity of 160,000 cubic meters.

2 The appendix referenced in this notice is not being printed in the Federal Register. Copies are available from the Commission's Public Reference and Files Maintenance Branch, at (202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary refer to the public participation section of this notice.

Specifically, Cameron seeks authority to construct and operate the following facilities:

• Two 16-inch-diameter unloading arms;

• One full-containment LNG storage tank with a net working capacity of 160,000 cubic meters;

• Two vapor return blowers;

• One boil off gas compressor;

• Six LNG send out pumps;

• One fuel gas heat exchanger;

• One air compressor, instrument air drier, and air surge vessel;

• Temporary dock facilities;

• Eight submerged combustion vaporizers; and

• Two shell-and-tube superheaters.

Land Requirements

It is estimated that the construction of the Terminal Expansion Project would disturb about 15 acres of land. This land is already leased by Cameron and adjacent to the proposed Hackberry LNG Terminal.

The EA Process

The FERC will be the lead federal agency for the preparation of the EA. The document will satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Cameron's Terminal Expansion Project is in the preliminary design state.

For this project, the FERC staff has initiated its NEPA review prior to receiving the application. The purpose of the Commission's Pre-Filing Process is to involve interested stakeholders early in project planning and to identify and resolve issues before an application is filed with the FERC. A docket number (PF06-10-000) has been established to place information filed by Cameron, and related documents issued by the Commission, into the public record. Once a formal application is filed with the FERC, a new docket number will be established.

NEPA requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the authorization of an LNG facility. NEPA also requires us to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this Notice of Intent, we are requesting public comments on the scope of the issues that should be addressed in the EA. We will consider all comments received during scoping in the preparation of the EA.

Our independent analysis of the issues will be in the EA. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA may be published and mailed to federal, state, and local agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; affected landowners; Native American tribes; libraries and newspapers; the Commission's official service list for this proceeding; and other interested parties. A comment period will be allotted for review if the EA is published. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make our recommendations to the Commission.

To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the instructions in the public participation section.

Public Participation

You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the proposal. By becoming a commentor, your concerns will be addressed in the EA and considered by the Commission. You should focus on the potential environmental effects of the proposal, alternatives to the proposal (including alternative locations), and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impact. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your comments are received in time and properly recorded:

• Label one copy of the comments for the attention of the Gas Branch 1, DG2E; and

• Reference Docket No. PF06-10-000 on the original and both copies.

• Mail your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before March 6, 2006.

The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments. See Title 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Internet Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the “eFiling” link and the link to the User's Guide. Prepare your submission in the same manner as you would if filing on paper and save it to a file on your hard drive. Before you can file comments you will need to create an account by clicking on “Login to File” and then “New User Account.” You will be asked to select the type of filing you are making. This filing is considered a “Comment on Filing.”

When Cameron submits its application for authorization to construct and operate the Terminal Expansion Project, the Commission will publish a Notice of Application in the Federal Register and will establish a deadline for interested persons to intervene in the proceeding. Because the Commission's Pre-Filing Process occurs before an application to begin a proceeding is officially filed, petitions to intervene during this process are premature and will not be accepted by the Commission.

Availability of Additional Information

Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at 1-866-208 FERC or on the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the “eLibrary” link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search,” and enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., PF06-10). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

In addition, the FERC now offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. To register for this service, go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will discuss the environmental impacts of Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation's (Transco) proposed Potomac Expansion Project involving construction and operation of facilities in Pittsylvania, Campbell, and Fairfax Counties, Virginia. This EA will be used by the Commission in its decision-making process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience and necessity.

This notice announces the opening of the scoping process that the Commission will use to gather environmental input from the public and interested agencies on the Potomac Expansion Project. Your input will help determine which issues need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that the scoping period will close on March 17, 2006. Details on how to submit comments are provided in the Public Participation section of this notice.

This notice is being sent to affected landowners; federal, state, and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. State and local government representatives are asked to notify their constituents of this planned project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.

If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted by a pipeline company representative about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The pipeline company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if the project is approved by the Commission, that approval conveys with it the right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings in accordance with state law.

With this notice, we 1 are asking other federal, state, local, and tribal agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental issues to cooperate with us in the preparation of the EA. Agencies that would like to request cooperating status should follow the instructions for filing comments provided below.

1 “We,” “us,” and “our” refer to the environmental staff of the Office of Energy Projects.

A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility on My Land? What Do I Need to Know?” is available for viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the FERC's proceedings.

Summary of the Proposed Project

Transco proposes to expand its existing pipeline facilities in Pittsylvania and Campbell Counties, Virginia and replace a portion of an existing natural gas pipeline in Fairfax County, Virginia (see map in Appendix A 2). The expansion would consist primarily of looping 3 Transco's existing pipeline system for about 21.2 miles and replacement of about 3.4 miles of pipeline. The Potomac Expansion Project is proposed to begin construction in March 2007 and place facilities in service by November 2007, contingent on the project being certificated.

2 The appendix referenced in this notice is not being printed in the Federal Register. Copies are available from the Commission's Public Reference and Files Maintenance Branch, at (202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary refer to the public participation section of this notice.

3 A loop is a segment of pipeline that is usually installed adjacent to an existing pipeline and connected to it at both ends. The loop allows more gas to be moved through the system.

Specifically, Transco seeks authority to construct and operate the following facilities:

• Pipeline Facilities

—About 17.2 miles of 42-inch-diameter loop in Pittsylvania County, Virginia. —About 4.0 miles of 42-inch-diameter loop in Campbell County, Virginia. —Replace 3.4 miles of 30-inch-diameter pipeline with 42-inch-diameter pipeline in Fairfax County, Virginia.

• Miscellaneous facilities

—Mainline valve (MLV) setting and pig launcher and receiver in Pittsylvania County, Virginia. —MLV setting and pig launcher in Campbell County, Virginia.—MLV setting and pig launcher and receiver in Fairfax County, Virginia. The EA Process

The FERC will be the lead federal agency for the preparation of the EA. The document will satisfy the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Potomac Expansion Project is in the preliminary design state.

For this project, the FERC staff has initiated its NEPA review prior to receiving the application. The purpose of the Commission's Pre-Filing Process is to involve interested stakeholders early in project planning and to identify and resolve issues before an application is filed with the FERC. A docket number (PF06-2-000) has been established to place information filed by Transco, and related documents issued by the Commission, into the public record. Once a formal application is filed with the FERC, a new docket number will be established.

NEPA requires the Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this Notice of Intent, we are requesting public comments on the scope of the issues that should be addressed in the EA. We will consider all comments received during scoping in the preparation of the EA.

Our independent analysis of the issues will be in the EA. Depending on the comments received during the scoping process, the EA may be published and mailed to federal, state, and local agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; other interested parties; affected landowners; Native American tribes; libraries, and newspapers; and the Commission's official service list for this proceeding. A comment period will be allotted for review if the EA is published. We will consider all comments on the EA before we make our recommendations to the Commission.

To ensure your comments are considered, please carefully follow the instructions in the public participation section.

Public Participation

You can make a difference by providing us with your specific comments or concerns about the proposal. By becoming a commentor, your concerns will be addressed in the EA and considered by the Commission. You should focus on the potential environmental effects of the proposal, alternatives to the proposal (including alternative locations), and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impact. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. Please carefully follow these instructions to ensure that your comments are received in time and properly recorded:

• Label one copy of the comments for the attention of the Gas Branch 1, DG2E; and

• Reference Docket No. PF06-2-000 on the original and both copies.

• Mail your comments so that they will be received in Washington, DC on or before March 17, 2006.

The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments. See Title 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's internet website at http://www.ferc.gov under the “eFiling” link and the link to the user's Guide. Prepare your submission in the same manner as you would if filing on paper and save it to a file on your hard drive. Before you can file comments you will need to create an account by clicking on “Login to File” and then “New User Account.” You will be asked to select the type of filing you are making. This filing is considered a “Comment on Filing.”

When Transco submits its application for authorization to construct and operate the Potomac Expansion Project, the Commission will publish a Notice of Application in the Federal Register and will establish a deadline for interested persons to intervene in the proceeding. Because the Commission's Pre-Filing Process occurs before an application to begin a proceeding is officially filed, petitions to intervene during this process are premature and will not be accepted by the Commission.

Environmental Mailing List

If you received this notice, you are on the environmental mailing list for the Potomac Expansion Project and will continue to receive project updates including the EA. If you want your contact information corrected or you do not want to remain on our mailing list, please return the Correct or Remove From Mailing List Form included as Appendix B.

To reduce printing and mailing costs, the EA may be issued in both CD-ROM and hard copy formats. The FERC strongly encourages the use of the CD-ROM format in its publication of documents. If you wish to receive a paper copy of the EA instead of a CD-ROM, you must indicate that choice on the return postcard (Appendix B).

Availability of Additional Information

Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at 1-866-208 FERC or on the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the “eLibrary” link. Click on the eLibrary link, click on “General Search,” and enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., PF06-2). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, contact (202) 502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

In addition, the FERC now offers a free service called eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. To register for this service, go to http://www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm.

Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and to conduct public scoping meetings; notice of floodplain and wetlands involvement.

SUMMARY:

The Department of Energy's (DOE) Western Area Power Administration (Western) and Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (OE) intend to conduct public scoping meetings and to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) on a proposal to construct new international transmission facilities and to connect those facilities with Western's transmission system at its Gila Substation east of Yuma, Arizona. The EIS will be prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and applicable regulations, including DOE NEPA implementing regulations.

The EIS is being prepared in response to Generadora del Desierto S.A. de C.V. (GDD) applying to DOE for a Presidential permit to construct two 500,000-volt (500-kilovolt (kV)) electric transmission lines across the United States border from Mexico, and North Branch Resources, LLC (NBR) applying to interconnect with Western's transmission system. With this Notice of Intent, DOE invites public participation in the EIS scoping process and solicits public comments to help establish the scope and content of the EIS. Because the project involves action in a floodplain, the EIS will address floodplain and wetlands impacts per DOE regulations for compliance with floodplain and wetlands environmental review.

DATES:

DOE invites interested agencies, tribes, organizations, and members of the public to submit comments or suggestions to assist in identifying significant environmental issues and in determining the appropriate scope of the EIS. The public scoping period starts with the publication of this notice in the Federal Register and will continue until March 13, 2006.

Public scoping meetings are set for:

1. February 28, 2006, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. in Yuma, Arizona.

2. February 28, 2006, 6 to 9 p.m. in Yuma, Arizona.

3. March 1, 2006, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. in San Luis, Arizona.

4. March 1, 2006, 6 to 9 p.m., in San Luis, Arizona.

ADDRESSES:

Written comments or suggestions on the scope of the EIS should be addressed to Mr. John Holt, Environmental Manager, Desert Southwest Customer Service Region, Western Area Power Administration, P.O. Box 6457, Phoenix, AZ 85005, facsimile (602) 605-2630, e-mail holt@wapa.gov.

Scoping meetings will be held at the Yuma Civic and Convention Center, 1440 West Desert Hills Drive in Yuma, AZ on February 28, and at the San Luis High School, 1250 North 8th Avenue in San Luis, AZ on March 1, 2006. The facilities are wheelchair accessible, and a Spanish-speaking representative will be present.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For information on the proposed project and interconnection with Western's transmission system, or to receive a copy of the Draft EIS when it is issued, contact Mr. Mark Wieringa, NEPA Document Manager, Western Area Power Administration, P.O. Box 281213, Lakewood, CO 80228-8213, telephone (800) 336-7288, facsimile (720) 962-7263, e-mail wieringa@wapa.gov.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Order Nos. 888 and 888-A require all public utilities owning or controlling interstate transmission facilities to offer non-discriminatory open access transmission services. Through these Orders, FERC addressed the need to encourage lower electricity rates by facilitating the development of competitive wholesale electric power markets through the prevention of unduly discriminatory practices in providing transmission services.

In order to be consistent with FERC Order Nos. 888 and 888-A, Western published its Notice of Final Open Access Transmission Service Tariff (Tariff) in the Federal Register on January 6, 1998. Western filed an amendment to the Tariff with FERC on January 25, 2005, to adopt Large Generator Interconnection (LGI) rules that substantially conform with those published in FERC Order Nos. 2003, 2003-A and 2003-B. Western's amended Tariff requires Western to respond to an application as presented by an applicant. Section 211 of the Federal Power Act requires that transmission services be provided upon application if transmission capacity is available.

In compliance with the FERC LGI rules, Western has committed to accommodating new transmission capacity constructed by an applicant. NBR has requested an interconnection to the Federal transmission system under Western's Tariff. Western must determine whether to grant or deny the interconnection while considering effects of the proposed project on existing customers, the environment, system reliability, and any system modifications needed to accommodate the interconnection. If the interconnection request is granted and the proposed project proceeds, Western would construct, own, operate, and maintain any required modifications to its own transmission system within the United States at the expense of NBR.

Because the proposed project would integrate a major new source of generation into Western's transmission system, Western has determined that an EIS is required under DOE's NEPA Implementing Procedures, 10 CFR part 1021, Subpart D, Appendix D, class of action D6.

DOE Presidential Permit

GDD has applied to DOE for a Presidential permit to construct two 500-kV electric transmission lines across the United States border from Mexico. Executive Order 10485, as amended by Executive Order 12038, requires that a Presidential permit be issued before electric transmission facilities may be constructed, operated, maintained, or connected at the U.S. international border. The Executive Order provides that a Presidential permit may be issued after a finding that the proposed project is consistent with the public interest and after concurrence by the U.S. Departments of State and Defense. The implementing regulations are published at 10 CFR 205.320-205.329.

In determining consistency with the public interest, DOE considers the environmental impacts of the proposed project under NEPA, determines the project's impact on electric reliability (including whether the proposed project would adversely affect the operation of the United States electric power supply system under normal and contingency conditions), and any other factors that DOE may also consider relevant to the public interest. Issuance of a Presidential permit indicates that there is no Federal objection to the project, but does not mandate that the project be completed.

Proposed Action and Alternatives

The Applicants are each wholly owned subsidiaries of North Branch Holding, LLC. GDD proposes to construct, own, operate, and maintain the power plant in Mexico and the short section of transmission line located in Mexico. The Applicants propose that Western construct, own, operate, and maintain the double-circuited 500-kV transmission components in the United States, at the Applicants' expense. In response to the interconnection request to Western, the transmission line would interconnect with Western's transmission system through a 500/161-kV expansion at Gila Substation, located east of Yuma. Under the proposal, Western would construct, own, operate, and maintain the 500-kV transmission line between a Point of Change of Ownership near the international border and the Gila Substation, the 500/161-kV expansion at Gila Substation, and the 500-kV transmission line between Gila Substation and Arizona Public Service Company's (APS) North Gila Substation. In that case, Western would become a co-applicant on the Presidential permit application.

Western considers the 500-kV transmission facilities south of Gila Substation, the Proposed Point of Interconnection, to be Interconnection Facilities for the sole use of the Applicants, while the path between Gila Substation and North Gila Substation is a Network Upgrade benefiting the integrated transmission system. The Interconnection Facilities will consist of the Interconnection Customer's Interconnection Facilities, owned by GDD, and Transmission Provider's Interconnection Facilities, owned by Western. GDD has received an authorization from Comision Reguladora de Energia (CRE), Mexico's energy regulatory commission, to export electric energy to the United States and GDD proposes to deliver on-peak electrical power into the United States in the vicinity of Yuma, Arizona.

The total length of the 500-kV transmission system within the United States would be approximately 25 miles; 20 miles from the international border to Gila Substation and 5 miles from Gila Substation to North Gila Substation. To reduce the height, the double-circuit 500-kV transmission line may be constructed as two separate single-circuit transmission lines for a short distance near the U.S. Marine Corps Auxiliary Airfield No. 2 landing pattern. The Applicants have proposed a route for the 500-kV transmission line that crosses the border immediately north of the proposed power generation facility and then turns northeast to the boundary of the Barry M. Goldwater Range (Range). The route then proceeds north along the boundary of the Range and parallels the proposed Area Service Highway and Western's existing Sonora 69-kV transmission line. Near the northwest corner of the Range, the proposed route heads north to the Yuma Mesa Irrigation District canal and levee, then turns generally northeastward, paralleling the canal, levee, levee road, and Western's 69-kV line into Gila Substation. Leaving Gila Substation, the proposed route parallels the existing three transmission lines to the north, crossing the South Gila Valley, then turns northwest and into APS's North Gila Substation, still paralleling the existing transmission lines. DOE will evaluate opportunities to consolidate existing transmission lines with the proposed new line.

DOE will consider any additional reasonable alternatives that result from comments received in response to the scoping process described in this notice. To be considered reasonable, alternatives would need to meet the Applicants' and Western's purpose and need, and be technically feasible and economically viable. DOE will also consider reasonable alternatives that may be identified later in the EIS process.

The EIS will also consider the environmental impacts of the “No Action” alternative. Under the No Action alternative, the EIS will analyze the impacts associated with not approving an interconnection agreement and not issuing a Presidential permit.

Activities Outside the United States

Inside Mexico, GDD plans to construct and operate a new 550-Megawatt (MW) nominal (605-MW peaking) natural gas-fired, combined cycle power generating facility located approximately 3 miles east of San Luis Rio Colorado, State of Sonora, Mexico, and about 1 mile south of the international border. While this facility is not subject to the United States' regulatory requirements, DOE will evaluate impacts within the United States from its operation as part of its impact analysis. GDD plans to construct the power generating facility to comply with applicable United States environmental standards in addition to those of Mexico's lnstituto Nacional de Ecología. The planned generating facility would be equipped with advanced air emissions control technology, including low-NOX combustion technology and a selective catalytic reduction system for oxides of nitrogen, and catalytic oxidizers for carbon monoxide emissions control. The generating facility's primary source of water would be treated effluent from the San Luis Rio Colorado water treatment plant, and GDD would construct a pipeline system connecting the two facilities. A natural gas pipeline approximately 6 miles long would be constructed from the generating facility to an existing main gas line. GDD plans to sell off-peak power inside Mexico to the association of maquiladoras (fabrication or assembly plants in the North American Free Trade Agreement zone) of San Luis Rio Colorado and also to the Comision Federal de Electricidad, Mexico's national electric utility. GDD would construct, own, operate, and maintain a section of transmission line in Mexico to a point to be determined (Point of Change of Ownership).

Identification of Environmental Issues

In the EIS, DOE will examine public health and safety effects and environmental impacts within the United States from the proposed transmission facilities and from the associated Mexico generating facility. The EIS will be prepared under the requirements of the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA Implementing Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and DOE's NEPA Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021). Because the project involves action in a floodplain, the EIS will include a floodplain assessment and floodplain statement of findings following DOE regulations for compliance with floodplain and wetlands environmental review (10 CFR part 1022). Tribal governments and Federal, state, and local agencies with special expertise or jurisdiction over the proposed project are being invited to become cooperating agencies on the EIS.

This notice is to inform agencies and the public of the proposed project and solicit comments and suggestions for consideration in the preparation of the EIS. To help the public frame its comments, this notice contains a list of potential environmental issues within the United States that DOE has tentatively identified for analysis. These issues include:

(1) Impacts on protected, threatened, endangered, or sensitive species of animals or plants or their critical habitats (including flat-tailed horned lizard and Peirson's milk-vetch);

(2) Impacts on other biological resources;

(3) Impacts on land use, recreation, and transportation (including agriculture, urban development and the planned Area Service Highway);

(7) Impacts on air, soil, and water resources (including air quality, groundwater consumption, and quality);

(8) Visual impacts; and

(9) Socioeconomic impacts and disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority and low-income populations.

This list is not intended to be all-inclusive or to imply any predetermination of impacts, and DOE invites interested parties to suggest specific issues within these general categories, or other issues not included above, to be considered in the EIS. Since the EIS would be prepared in compliance with U.S. law, it will only address impacts that would accrue in the United States. NEPA does not require an analysis of environmental impacts that occur within another sovereign nation that result from approved actions by that sovereign nation. Executive Order 12114 (January 4, 1979) requires Federal agencies to prepare an analysis of significant impacts from a Federal action in certain defined circumstances and exempts agencies from preparing analyses in others. The Order does not require Federal agencies to evaluate impacts outside the United States when the foreign nation is participating with the United States or is otherwise involved in the action. Here, the Mexican Government has been involved in evaluating the environmental impacts associated with the generating facility in Mexico and has issued permits authorizing the construction and operation of the generating facility and ancillary facilities, including water use. An overview of the permitting of the generating facility and associated environmental impacts analysis that was performed by the Mexican Government will be included in the Draft EIS.

Scoping Process

Interested parties are invited to participate in the scoping process, both to refine the preliminary alternatives and environmental issues to be analyzed in depth, and to eliminate from detailed study those alternatives and environmental issues that are not feasible or pertinent. All comments received will be considered and used to shape the EIS process.

Public EIS scoping meetings will be held at the location, date, and times indicated above under the DATES and ADDRESSES sections. The scoping meetings will be structured as informal open houses. They will provide interested parties the opportunity to view proposed project and EIS process information, ask questions, and make comments. DOE and cooperating agency representatives will be available to answer questions and provide additional information to attendees.

DOE invites those entities with jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to environmental issues to be cooperating agencies on the EIS, as defined at 40 CFR 1501.6. Such entities may also make a request to DOE to be a cooperating agency. Designated cooperating agencies have certain responsibilities to support the NEPA process, as specified at 40 CFR 1501.6(b).

Persons submitting comments during the scoping process will receive copies of the Draft EIS. Persons who do not wish to submit comments or suggestions at this time, but who would like to receive a copy of the Draft EIS for review and comment when it is issued, should notify Mr. Mark Wieringa at the address provided above. The Draft EIS in printed form or electronic form on a compact disc will be made available to the public upon request.

Draft EIS Schedule and Availability

DOE anticipates the EIS process will take about 14 to 16 months and will include the public information and scoping meetings; consultation and involvement with appropriate Federal, state, and local agencies, and tribal governments; public review and hearing(s) on the published Draft EIS; a published Final EIS; and publication of a Record of Decision (ROD).

The public will be provided an opportunity to review the Draft EIS and a hearing on the published Draft EIS is expected to be conducted in the third quarter of calendar year 2006. A notice of the location of these public hearings will be provided in the Federal Register and local media at a later date.

A published final EIS, a waiting period, and publication of a ROD are anticipated in early calendar year 2007.

In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (“Act”), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is hereby given of a proposed settlement agreement, to address a petition for writ of mandamus filed by Sierra Club in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: In re Sierra Club, No. 05-1045 (DC Cir.). On February 15, 2005, Petitioner filed a petition asking the Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing EPA to complete remand proceedings ordered by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658 (DC Cir. 1999) for EPA's maximum achievable control technology (“MACT”) determinations for new and existing hospital, medical and infectious waste incinerators (“HMIWI”). Under the terms of the proposed settlement agreement, no later than one year after this agreement is executed, the Administrator shall sign a notice of proposed rulemaking which responds to the remand order and no later than two years after this agreement is executed, the Administrator shall sign a notice of final rulemaking which responds to the remand order.

DATES:

Written comments on the proposed settlement agree must be received by March 13, 2006.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OGC-2006-0104, online at http://www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred method); by e-mail to oei.docket@epa.gov; mailed to EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be formatted in Wordperfect or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address above.

EPA promulgated regulations on September 15, 1997 to establish MACT standards for HMIWI. 62 FR 48347. These regulations were challenged, and on April 12, 1999, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit remanded EPA's MACT determinations for new and existing HMIWI regulations to EPA. Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F.3d 658 (DC Cir 1999).

The settlement agreement provides, among other things, that: (1) One year after the execution of this settlement agreement, EPA shall sign for publication in the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking setting forth its proposed response to the Court's remand order in Sierra Club v. EPA; (2) following a period of at least 30 days for public comment on the proposed rulemaking, two years after the execution of this settlement agreement, EPA shall sign for publication in the Federal Register a notice of final rulemaking; and (3) no later than 15 days after the Administrator signs the final rulemaking and transmits it to the Office of the Federal Register for publication the petitioner will dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus.

For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the proposed settlement agreement from persons who were not named as parties or interveners to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed settlement agreement if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice determines, based on any comment which may be submitted, that consent to the settlement agreement should be withdrawn, the terms of the agreement will be affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Settlement AgreementA. How Can I Get a Copy of the Settlement Agreement?

Direct your comments to the official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2006-0104 which contains a copy of the settlement agreement. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.

An electronic version of the public docket is available through http://www.regulations.gov. You may use the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit or view public comments, to access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket identification number.

It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing online at http://www.regulations.gov without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not included in the official public docket or in the electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket Center.

B. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?

You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

Use of the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The electronic public docket system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail (e-mail) system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the Docket without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address is automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as amended (“Act”), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is hereby given of a proposed consent decree, to address a deadline suit filed by Sierra Club: Sierra Club v. Johnson, No. 05CV02177 (RMC) (D. DC). On July 9, 2002 and November 18, 2002, Sierra Club petitioned EPA to object to certain Clean Air Act Title V permit amendments proposed by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division for steam generating plants at (1) Georgia Power's Bowen Steam-Electric Generating Plant (“the Bowen plant”) and (2) the Bowen, McDonough/Atkinson, Yates, Hammond, Wansley, Scherer, and Branch Steam-Electric Generating Plants (collectively “the seven power plants”) in the State of Georgia. Subsequently, Sierra Club filed suit, alleging that the Administrator failed to perform his nondiscretionary duty to respond to the petitions within sixty days of the date they were filed. Under the terms of today's proposed consent decree, EPA has agreed to respond to the petitions by March 15, 2006, and Sierra Club has agreed that if EPA does so, Sierra Club will dismiss its suit with prejudice. In addition, EPA has agreed to pay Sierra Club a specified amount in settlement for attorneys' fees in this matter.

DATES:

Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received by March 13, 2006.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-OGC-2006-0105, online at http://www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred method); by e-mail to oei.docket@epa.gov; mailed to EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be formatted in Wordperfect or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address above.

This proposed consent decree would resolve a deadline suit to require EPA to respond to two administrative petitions that EPA object to certain Title V permit amendments proposed by the Georgia Environmental Protection Division for the Bowen plant and the seven power plants in the State of Georgia. Under the proposed decree, Sierra Club would agree to dismiss the lawsuit if the Administrator responds to the petitions by March 15, 2006. The consent decree does not specify the type of response that the Administrator must make to the petitions. If the consent decree becomes final and the Administrator responds to the petitions by March 15, 2006, Sierra Club will dismiss the case and EPA will pay Sierra Club a specified amount in settlement of its claims for attorneys' fees.

For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the proposed consent decree from persons who were not named as parties or interveners to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of Justice determines, based on any comment which may be submitted, that consent to the consent decree should be withdrawn, the terms of the decree will be affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent DecreeA. How Can I Get a Copy of the Consent Decree?

Direct your comments to the official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2006-0105 which contains a copy of the consent decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.

An electronic version of the public docket is available through www.regulations.gov. You may use the www.regulations.gov Web site to submit or view public comments, to access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select “search,” then key in the appropriate docket identification number.

It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing online at http://www.regulations.gov without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not included in the official public docket or in the electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket Center.

B. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?

You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.

Use of the www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The electronic public docket system is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail (e-mail) system is not an “anonymous access” system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the Docket without going through www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address is automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

Availability of EPA comments prepared pursuant to the Environmental Review Process (ERP), under section 309 of the Clean Air Act and Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act as amended. Requests for copies of EPA comments can be directed to the Office of Federal Activities at 202-564-7167. An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental impact statements (EISs) was published in the Federal Register dated April 1, 2005 (70 FR 16815).

Summary: EPA supports the potential benefits of the proposed action that may result in improvement of the desired future conditions. However, the final EIS should include information on sediment, water quality, fisheries, and wildlife to adequately determine the extent of project impacts. Rating EC2.

Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about potential adverse impacts to the aquatic ecosystem and recommended avoidance of unnatural double peak hydrographs and further evaluation of Alternative LV2 as part of a potential long-term strategy to more effectively recover the endangered Kootenai River white sturgeon. EPA supports dam and reservoir operations that avoid exceedances of total dissolved gas saturation standards as much as possible and more natural flow regimes and net overall benefits to the aquatic ecosystems. Rating EC2.

Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about ongoing water quality and potential impacts of toxic substances released by mining activities, and recommended that the final EIS include data demonstrating that water quality standards would be met and details on the mine tailings management. Rating EC1.

EIS No. 20050504, ERP No. DC-COE-H36012-MO, St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid Floodway Project, Channel Enlargement and Improvement, Revised Information to Clarify and Address Issues of Concern, Flood Control National Economic Development (NED), New Madrid, Mississippi and Scott Counties, MO.

Summary: EPA recommended that the Final RSEIS 2 provide additional information on locations and expected benefits of mitigation measures, and on contingencies for fishery impacts in the event that the proposed fish passage measures into the New Madrid Floodway do not perform as anticipated. Rating EC2.

Summary: EPA supports BLM's proposal to immediately close certain routes to reduce erosion and sediment loading in streams and avoid impacts to special status species. BLM has also committed to incorporating the results of EPA's CCMA asbestos exposure evaluation into a subsequent NEPA document soon after our study is completed in July 2006. EPA expressed some human health concerns and recommended that, in the interim, BLM implement measures in the CCMA to reduce children's exposure to asbestos, improve public education/communication regarding asbestos risks, and commit to a 2006 summer dry season closure between Memorial Day weekend and November 15.

Summary: EPA continued to expressed concerns about potential impacts from the project's short-term emissions of ozone precursors and particulate smaller than 10 microns, and recommended the Forest Service include additional lease stipulations to reduce air pollutant emissions.

Summary: EPA's environmental concerns about potential adverse impacts to water quality and natural resources have been addressed; therefore, EPA does not object to the proposed action.

EIS No. 20050529, ERP No. F-FHW-K40256-CA, 1st Street Viaduct and Street Widening Project, To Replace Two Traffic Lanes on the 1st Street Viaduct between Vignes Street and Mission Road, Funding, in the City and County of Los Angeles, CA.

Summary: EPA continues to have environmental concerns about the proposed project regarding air quality and mitigation for construction-related diesel emissions.

The Tribal Pesticide Program Council (TPPC) will hold a 2 and 1/2-day meeting, beginning on March 8 and ending on March 10, 2006. This notice announces the location and times for the meeting, and sets forth the tentative agenda topics. One Tribal Caucus scheduled each day.

DATES:

The meeting will be held on March 8-9, 2006 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and a half day training for Tribes on March 10, 2006.

ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at Doubletree Hotel (Crystal City), 300 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA 22202.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:I. General InformationA. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be potentially affected by this action if you may be potentially affected by this action if you are interested in TPPC's information exchange relationship with EPA regarding important issues related to human health, environmental exposure to pesticides, and insight into EPA's decision-making process. All parties are invited and encouraged to attend the meetings and participate as appropriate. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to those persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult either person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:

• This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of particular interest to those persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)

B. How Can I Get Copies of this Document and Other Related Information?

1. Docket. EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket identification number (ID) [OPP-EPA-HQ-2006-0068; FRL-7760-8]. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. This Docket Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is (703) 305-5805.

2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

EDOCKET, EPA's electronic public docket and comment system was replaced on November 25,2005, by an enhanced Federal-wide electronic docket management and comment system located at http://www.regulations.gov/. Follow the on-line instructions.

This notice announces the availability of EPA's risk assessments, and related documents for the pesticide rotenone, and opens a public comment period on these documents. The public is encouraged to suggest risk management ideas or proposals to address the risks identified. EPA is developing a Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED), for roteneone through a modified, 4-Phase public participation process that the Agency uses to involve the public in developing pesticide reregistration and tolerance reassessment decisions. Through these programs, EPA is ensuring that all pesticides meet current health and safety standards.

DATES:

Comments must be received on or before April 11, 2006.

ADDRESSES:

Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number OPP-EPA-HQ-2005-0494, by one of the following methods:

Hand delivery: Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA, Attention: Docket ID number OPP-EPA-HQ-2005-0494. The docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the docket facility is (703) 305-5805. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

Instructions. Direct your comments to docket ID number OPP-EPA-HQ-2005-0494. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available on-line at http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-mail. The regulations.gov website is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be captured automatically and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/docket.htm/.

Docket. All documents in the docket are listed in the regulation.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically at http://www.regulations.gov/ or in hard copy at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB) (7502C), Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., Arlington, VA. The docket facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the docket facility is (703) 305-5805.

This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.

viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

II. BackgroundA. What Action is the Agency Taking?

EPA is releasing for public comment its human health and environmental fate and effects risk assessments and related documents for rotenone. Rotenone is a botanical insecticide, acaracide, and piscicide obtained from extracts of roots, seeds, and leaves of various plants that are members of the pea or bean family (Leguminosae), including jewel vine (Derris spp.). EPA developed the risk assessments and risk characterization for rotenone through a modified version of its public process for making pesticide reregistration eligibility and tolerance reassessment decisions. Through these programs, EPA is ensuring that pesticides meet current standards under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA).

Rotenone is used as a insecticide, acaracide, and piscicide in many different use sites. It is used as an insecticide/acaracide for home and garden use, as an insecticide/acaracide for agricultural crops, and as a an insecticide on domesticated animals by veterinarians and private citizens. Rotenone also has an important use as a piscicide in fisheries and in lakes and streams to eradicate unwanted species.

EPA is providing an opportunity, through this notice, for interested parties to provide comments and input on the Agency's risk assessments for rotenone. Such comments and input could address, for example, the availability of additional data to further refine the risk assessments, such as worker exposure information, or could address the Agency's risk assessment methodologies and assumptions as applied to this specific pesticide.

Through this notice, EPA also is providing an opportunity for interested parties to provide risk management proposals or otherwise comment on risk management for rotenone. Risks of concern associated with the use of rotenone are: Risk to private citizens when rotenone is used in and around the home, garden, and on pets; post-application risk to adults, youth and children when rotenone is used around the home, garden, and on pets; risk to swimmers when rotenone is used in lakes, ponds, and streams; risk to occupational handlers when rotenone is used in agriculture, around residential homes, and when used as a piscicide in lakes, ponds and streams. In targeting these risks of concern, the Agency solicits information on effective and practical risk reduction measures.

EPA seeks to achieve environmental justice, the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, in the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. To help address potential environmental justice issues, the Agency seeks information on any groups or segments of the population who, as a result of their location, cultural practices, or other factors, may have atypical, unusually high exposure to rotenone, compared to the general population.

EPA is applying the principles of public participation to all pesticides undergoing reregistration and tolerance reassessment. The Agency's Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration; Public Participation Process, published in the Federal Register on May 14, 2004 (69 FR 26819) (FRL-7357-9), explains that in conducting these programs, the Agency is tailoring its public participation process to be commensurate with the level of risk, extent of use, complexity of the issues, and degree of public concern associated with each pesticide. For rotenone, a modified, 4-Phase process with one comment period and ample opportunity for public consultation seems appropriate in view of its limited use and small number of users. However, if as a result of comments received during this comment period EPA finds that additional issues warranting further discussion are raised, the Agency may lengthen the process and include a second comment period, as needed.

All comments should be submitted using the methods in ADDRESSES, and must be received by EPA on or before the closing date. Comments will become part of the Agency Docket for rotenone. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

Section 4(g)(2) of FIFRA as amended directs that, after submission of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient, “the Administrator shall determine whether pesticides containing such active ingredient are eligible for reregistration,” before calling in product-specific data on individual end-use products and either reregistering products or taking other “appropriate regulatory action.”

Section 408(q) of the FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 346a(q), requires EPA to review tolerances and exemptions for pesticide residues in effect as of August 2, 1996, to determine whether the tolerance or exemption meets the requirements of section 408(b)(2) or (c)(2) of FFDCA. This review is to be completed by August 3, 2006.

List of Subjects

Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

Dated: February 3, 2006.Debra Edwards,Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.[FR Doc. E6-1902 Filed 2-9-06; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 6560-50-SEXPORT-IMPORT BANKNotice of Open Special Meeting of the Advisory Committee of the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank)

Summary: The Advisory Committee was established by Pub. L. 98-181, November 30, 1983, to advise the Export-Import Bank on its programs and to provide comments for inclusion in the reports of the Export-Import Bank of the United States to Congress.

Time and Place: Wednesday, March 1, 2006, from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. The meeting will be held at Ex-Im Bank in the Main Conference Room 1143, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571.

Agenda: This meeting will focus on the Bank's efforts to increase its support of small business exporters.

Public Participation: The meeting will be open to public participation, and the last 10 minutes will be set aside for oral questions or comments. Members of the public may also file written statement(s) before or after the meeting. If you plan to attend, a photo ID must be presented, and you may contact Teri Stumpf to be placed on an attendee list. If any person wishes auxiliary aids (such as a sign language interpreter) or other special accommodations, please contact, prior to February 22, 2006, Teri Stumpf, Room 1203, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20571, Voice: (202) 565-3502 or TDD (202) 565-3377.

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than February 21, 2006.

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than February 27, 2006.

The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center Web site at http://www.ffiec.gov/nic/.

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 3, 2006.

The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center Web site at http://www.ffiec.gov/nic/.

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 6, 2006.

The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.

The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The application also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States. Additional information on all bank holding companies may be obtained from the National Information Center website at www.ffiec.gov/nic/.

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 9, 2006.

The Depository Library Council to the Public Printer (DLC) will meet on Sunday, April 2, 2006, through Wednesday, April 5, 2006, at Renaissance Seattle Hotel, Washington.

The sessions will take place from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Sunday through Tuesday, and 8 a.m. to 12 noon on Wednesday. The meeting will be held at the Renaissance Seattle Hotel, 515 Madison Street, Seattle, Washington. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the Federal Depository Library Program. All sessions are open to the public.

The sleeping rooms available at the Renaissance Seattle Hotel will be at the Government rate of $124.00 (plus applicable state and local taxes, currently 15.6%) a night for a single or double. The Renaissance Seattle Hotel is in compliance with the requirements of Title III of the Americans With Disabilities Act and meets all Fire Safety Act regulations.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) publishes a list of information collection requests under review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35). To request a copy of these requests, call the CDC Reports Clearance Officer at (404) 639-5960 or send an e-mail to omb@cdc.gov. Send written comments to CDC Desk Officer, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC or by fax to (202) 395-6974. Written comments should be received within 30 days of this notice.

Proposed Project

Integrating HIV and Other Prevention Services into Reproductive Health and Other Community Settings—Program Evaluation—New—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Background and Brief Description

Integrating HIV and Other Prevention Services into Reproductive Health and Other Community Settings is a training project of the CDC, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, and its grantees (ten family planning regional training centers). The project requires twice-yearly reports from its grantees, (each of whom corresponds to one of the ten federal public health regions) on their training-centered intervention activities.

The projects deliver training and technical assistance to health provider agencies to promote the program's objective of integrating prevention services into the existing range of services delivered by the project's health-provider agency partners. In addition, four projects are funded for adolescent reproductive health to deliver training and technical assistance to promote capacity building of communities in preventing teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and promoting adolescent reproductive health. Promoting integrated prevention services and adolescent reproductive health are key strategies in containing the HIV epidemic in that the targeted provider agencies and the targeted communities serve at-risk populations not generally served by other health agencies where HIV prevention is a programmatic component.

Evaluation of this 5-year prevention integration program, which began September 30, 2004, will focus on process and outcome (or impact). Both process and outcome evaluation will provide data for validating program action or for redirecting program activities. On-going evaluation is a vital component for ensuring program success.

The evaluated findings from the data collection will enable the projects to be more efficient and effective in their operations and provide a direct means for submitting the twice-yearly progress reports, as mandated for all CDC cooperative agreements.

Grantees' semi-annual performance reports are due April 30 and October 30 during each year of the 5-year cooperative agreement. Using the on-line system, grantees enter data during each reporting period, and then generate a copy of their training report. Next, by the specified dates, grantees deliver this performance report and their non-structured narrative report, which explains additions, deletions, changes, and redirections of training objectives or activities, to CDC's Procurement and Grants Office.

The information obtained from the on-line performance reporting system will help the CDC meet its evaluation objectives. No proprietary items or sensitive information will be collected. There is no cost to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 26.

This gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) of October 6, 1972, that the Advisory Committee to the Director, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, of the Department of Health and Human Services, has been renewed for a 2-year period extending through February 1, 2008.

The Director, Management and Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

Dated: February 2, 2006. Diane Allen, Acting Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [FR Doc. 06-1202 Filed 2-9-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-18-PDEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Office of the Chief Science Officer; The Ethics Subcommittee of the Advisory Committee to the Director (ACD), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Public Health Ethics Committee, Office of the Chief Science Officer, CDC

In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), CDC announces the following committee meeting.

Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space available. The meeting room accommodates approximately 60 people.

Purpose: The meeting will provide a report on the progress of CDC's efforts to increase the capacity of public health ethics, to manage issues involving public health ethics, and to identify the current and future public health ethics needs and priorities at CDC.

Matters To Be Discussed: Agenda items will include highlights of public health activities in 2005; public health ethics at CDC in 2006 and the future; a report on the Pandemic Influenza Planning consultation; public health ethics challenges (focus on science); and a discussion on needs, priorities, and action steps.

Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.

Due to administrative issues that had to be resolved, the Federal Register notice is being published less than fifteen days before the date of the meeting.

The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities for both the CDC and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the Agency's function; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

1. Type of Information Collection Request: New collection; Title of Information Collection: Competitive Acquisition Program (CAP) for Medicare Part B Drugs: CAP Physician Election Agreement; Form Number: CMS-10167 (OMB#: 0938-NEW); Use: Beginning in 2006, physicians will have a choice between acquiring and billing for Part B covered drugs under the Average Sales Price (ASP) drug payment methodology or electing to receive these drugs from vendors/suppliers selected for the CAP through a competitive bidding process. The provisions for this new payment system are described in the proposed rule (42 CFR Part 414 Subpart K) published March 4, 2005 (70 FR 10746), the interim final rule published July 6, 2005 (70 FR 39022), and a final rule (CMS-1502-FC) that published on November 21, 2005. Competitive bidding is seen as a means of using the dynamics of the marketplace to provide incentives for suppliers to provide reasonably priced products and services of high quality in an efficient manner. The CAP's objectives include the following: (1) To provide an alternative method for physicians to obtain Part B drugs to administer to Medicare beneficiaries; and (2) to reduce drug acquisition and billing burdens for physicians.; Frequency: Reporting—Annually; Affected Public: Business or other-for-profit; Number of Respondents: 10,000; Total Annual Responses: 10,000; Total Annual Hours: 20,000.

2. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: HIPAA Nondiscrimination Provisions (Regulation HCFA 2078-P); Form Number: CMS-10009 (OMB#: 0938-819); Use: The provisions of Title I of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) are designed to make it easier for people to get access to health care coverage, to reduce the limitations that can be put on the coverage, and to make it more difficult for issuers to terminate the coverage. Title I provisions are divided into group and individual market protections. The group provisions apply to employment-related group health plans and to the issuers who sell insurance in connection with group health plans. Section 2702 of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act—the HIPAA nondiscrimination provisions) establish rules generally prohibiting group health plans and group health insurance issuers from discriminating against individual participants or beneficiaries based on any health factor of such participants or beneficiaries; Frequency: Third party disclosure, Reporting—Annually; Affected Public: Business or other-for-profit, Individuals or Households, Not-for-profit institutions, Federal government, and State, Local, or Tribal Government; Number of Respondents: 2600; Total Annual Responses: 2600; Total Annual Hours: 100.

3. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: HIPAA Nondiscrimination Provisions (Regulation HCFA 2022-IFC); Form Number: CMS-10001 (OMB#: 0938-827); Use: The provisions of Title I of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) are designed to make it easier for people to access health care coverage; to reduce the limitations that can be put on the coverage; and to make it more difficult for issuers to terminate the coverage. Title I provisions are divided into group and individual market protections. The group provisions apply to employment-related group health plans and to the issuers who sell insurance in connection with group health plans. Section 2702 of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) (the HIPAA nondiscrimination provisions) establish rules generally prohibiting group health plans and group health insurance issuers from discriminating against individual participants or beneficiaries based on any health factor of such participants or beneficiaries; Frequency: Third party disclosure, Reporting—Annually; Affected Public: Business or other-for-profit, Individuals or Households, Not-for-profit institutions, Federal government, and State, Local, or Tribal Government; Number of Respondents: 18; Total Annual Responses: 18; Total Annual Hours: 194.

4. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Hospital Wage Index—Occupational Mix Survey and Supporting Regulations in 42 CFR 412.230, 412.304, and 413.65; Form Number: CMS-10079 (OMB#: 0938-0907); Use: Section 304 of the Medicare, Medicaid, and State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000 requires CMS to collect wage data on hospital employees by occupational category, at least once every 3 years in order to construct an occupational mix adjustment to the wage index. CMS first collected occupational mix survey data in 2003 for the FY 2005 wage index. The next data collection is occurring in 2006 for the FY 2008 wage index. In response to industry comments suggesting ways to improve the occupational mix survey, CMS has revised the survey. The purpose of the occupational mix adjustment is to control for the effect of hospitals' employment choices on the wage index. For example, hospitals may choose to employ different combinations of registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, nursing aides, and medical assistants for the purpose of providing nursing care to their patients. The varying labor costs associated with these choices reflect hospital management decisions rather than geographic differences in the costs of labor. Each of the approximately 3,800 acute care hospital inpatient prospective payment system (IPPS) providers participating in the Medicare program will be required to complete the 2006 Medicare Wage Index Occupational Mix Survey. The initial survey will be forwarded via email to all of CMS's fiscal intermediaries; Frequency: Reporting—Other, Triennially; Affected Public: Business or other for-profit and Not-for-profit institutions; Number of Respondents: 3,800; Total Annual Responses: 3,800; Total Annual Hours: 608,000.

To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for these paperwork collections referenced above, access CMS Web site address at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PaperworkReductionActof1995, or e-mail your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to Paperwork@cms.hhs.gov, or call the Reports Clearance Office on (410) 786-1326.

To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations for the proposed information collections must be received by the OMB Desk Officer at the address below, no later than 5 p.m. on March 13, 2006. OMB Human Resources and Housing Branch, Attention: Carolyn Lovett, CMS Desk Officer, New Executive Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503.

In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is publishing the following summary of proposed collections for public comment. Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.

1. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Comprehensive Outpatient Rehabilitation Facility (CORF) Eligibility and Survey Forms and Information Collection Requirements at 42 CFR 485.56, 485.58, 485.60, 485.64, 485.66 and 410.105; Use: In order for a provider to participate in the Medicare program as a CORF, a provider must meet the Federal conditions of participation. The form CMS-359 is utilized as an application for facilities wishing to participate in the Medicare/Medicaid program as CORFs. This form initiates the process of obtaining a decision as to whether the conditions of participation are met. The form CMS-360 is an instrument used by the State survey agency to record data collected in order to determine the provider compliance with individual conditions of participation and to report it to the Federal government; Form Numbers: CMS-359, 360, R-55 (OMB#: 0938-0267); Frequency: Reporting—On occasion; Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal government and Business or other for-profit; Number of Respondents: 630; Total Annual Responses: 630; Total Annual Hours: 300,046.

2. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: State Medicaid Drug Rebate; Use: Section 1927 of the Social Security Act requires each State Medicaid agency to report quarterly prescription drug utilization information to drug manufacturers and to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. As part of this information, the State Medicaid agencies are required to report the total Medicaid rebate amount they claim they are owed by each drug manufacturer for each covered prescription drug product each quarter; Form Numbers: CMS-368, R-144 (OMB#: 0938-0582); Frequency: Reporting—Quarterly; Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal government; Number of Respondents: 51; Total Annual Responses: 204; Total Annual Hours: 9,389.

3. Type of Information Collection Request: Extension of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Hospice Survey and Deficiencies Report Form and Supporting Regulations at 42 CFR 442.30 and 488.26; Use: In order to participate in the Medicare program, a hospice must meet certain Federal health and safety conditions of participation. This form is used by State surveyors to record data about a hospice's compliance with these conditions of participation in order to initiate the certification or recertification process; Form Number: CMS-643 (OMB#: 0938-0379); Frequency: Reporting—Annually; Affected Public: Not-for-profit institutions and Business or other for-profit; Number of Respondents: 2,293; Total Annual Responses: 475; Total Annual Hours: 238.

To obtain copies of the supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed paperwork collections referenced above, access CMS' Web site address at http://www.cms.hhs.gov/PaperworkReductionActof1995, or E-mail your request, including your address, phone number, OMB number, and CMS document identifier, to Paperwork@cms.hhs.gov, or call the Reports Clearance Office on (410) 786-1326.

To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations for the proposed information collections must be received at the address below, no later than 5 p.m. on April 11, 2006. CMS, Office of Strategic Operations and Regulatory Affairs, Division of Regulations Development—A, Attention: Melissa Musotto (CMS-359, 360, R-55; CMS-368, R-144; and CMS-643) Room C4-26-05, 7500 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21244-1850.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA).

DATES:

Fax written comments on the collection of information by March 13, 2006.

ADDRESSES:

OMB is still experiencing significant delays in the regular mail, including first class and express mail, and messenger deliveries are not being accepted. To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: Fumie Yokota, Desk Officer for FDA, FAX: 202-395-6974.

In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

Recommendations for the Early Food Safety Evaluation of New Non-Pesticidal Proteins Produced by New Plant Varieties Intended for Food Use

Since 1992, when FDA issued its Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties (57 FR 22984, May 29, 1992), FDA has encouraged developers of new plant varieties, including those varieties that are developed through biotechnology, to consult with FDA early in the development process to discuss possible scientific and regulatory issues that might arise. The current guidance continues to foster early communication by encouraging developers to submit to FDA their evaluation of the food safety of their new protein. Such communication helps to ensure that any potential food safety issues regarding a new protein in a new plant variety are resolved early in development, prior to any possible inadvertent introduction into the food supply of material from that plant variety.

FDA believes that any food safety concern related to such material entering the food supply would be limited to the potential that a new protein in food from the plant variety could cause an allergic reaction in susceptible individuals or could be a toxin. This guidance describes the procedures for early food safety evaluation of new proteins in new plant varieties, including bioengineered food plants, and the procedures for communicating with FDA about the safety evaluation.

In the Federal Register of November 24, 2004 (69 FR 68381), FDA published a notice of availability with a 60-day comment period requesting public comment on the collection of information in FDA's draft guidance document titled, “Guidance for Industry: Recommendations for the Early Food Safety Evaluation of New Non-Pesticidal Proteins Produced by New Plant Varieties Intended for Food Use.”

Nonresponsive comments

FDA received approximately 5,000 letters in response to the November 24, 2004, notice. However, many of these letters contained comments that were not responsive to the PRA questions. For example, several comments expressed the following opinions: The collection of information was insufficient to ensure safety; the agency might not be able to commit sufficient resources to performing early food safety reviews without having to redirect resources from other tasks; the decision should not be left to the developer regarding when to submit an early food safety evaluation to the agency; and the objectivity and scientific expertise of the individuals reviewing the information may be inadequate.

(Response) These comments are general comments directed to the adequacy of the guidance, rather than specific comments relevant to the collection of information; therefore, these non-responsive comments will not be addressed in this document.

Responsive comments

FDA received several letters with specific comments responsive to the comment request concerning the proposed information collection in the notice. The comments and FDA's responses follow.

(Comment 1) Several comments were supportive of the information collection, stating that the information collection was necessary for FDA to fulfill statutory requirements to protect the safety of the food supply. Relevant to the minimization of burden, several of these comments also noted that the information collection was appropriately limited in scope to prevent duplicative submissions among Federal agencies.

(Response) These comments provide support for the utility of the information collection and confirm that the collection will not result in a duplicative information collection among Federal agencies.

(Comment 2) One comment suggested that FDA should minimize the burden on developers by referencing in the guidance the availability of public protein databases that could be useful in the evaluation of allergen or toxin homology.

(Response) FDA does not want to reference or list the various databases because to do so would imply that FDA is endorsing any or all of them. FDA finds that there are several databases in the public domain that are easily obtained through the internet, are known in the scientific community, and are in common use by developers of bioengineered crops.

(Comment 3) One comment suggested that FDA could minimize the burden of the proposed collection of information by clarifying that a weight of the evidence approach is applied to the assessment of potential allergenicity of a new protein. The comment further suggested that alternative methods and protocols be considered in the evaluation of the allergenicity of new proteins.

(Response) FDA's guidance does not state that a weight of the evidence approach will be applied to the evaluation. The guidance describes a case-by-case evaluation that recognizes that different pieces of information may have varying importance for the food safety evaluation depending on the characteristics of the protein. As stated in the guidance, developers are free to use alternative approaches in their evaluations. The comment fails to explain how a weight of the evidence approach would reduce the burden under the PRA.

(Comment 4) One comment suggested as an approach to minimize burden on developers that FDA treat highly similar proteins as a family of proteins, if they differ only by a few amino acids but retain the same function, rather than evaluating each protein individually, though the comment further suggests that certain aspects of a protein may be evaluated individually.

(Response) FDA notes that the guidance is intended to consider specific proteins, not protein families. FDA further notes that even small changes in amino acid sequence may alter a protein, and these small differences could also have implications for food safety. However, if there is relevant information contained in a previous submission, that information can be incorporated by reference into a current submission for a new protein evaluation.

(Comment 5) One comment suggested as a means of minimizing burden of the proposed collection of information that FDA provide standard forms or formats for certain elements of the submission (e.g., bioinformatics reports). The comment also suggested minimizing burden by making greater use of electronic submissions.

(Response) FDA has considered the use of standardized forms or formats and at this time does not believe that their use would reduce the burden of the information collection. The use of standardized forms could discourage alternative approaches for the presentation of data in an evaluation that might more clearly or thoroughly set forth the data. Developers will have access to the forms and formats used by previous submitters and are free to use them; thus, at this time we do not perceive a need for a standardized form. Based on its experience in evaluation of submissions FDA will in the future revisit whether the use of standardized forms and formats would be advantageous to developers.

With respect to electronic submissions, FDA states in the guidance that electronic submissions are acceptable, but one paper copy is also requested. Efforts are underway at FDA to convert in the future to a submission process that is entirely electronic.

(Comment 6) One comment stated that a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected is to follow guidance available from the Codex Alimentarius. Although the comment did not specify which guidance from the Codex Alimentarius FDA should follow, FDA believes that the comment is referring to the Codex Alimentarius “Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA Plants” (CAC/GL 45-2003) (the Codex Plant Guideline), containing “Annex: Assessment of Possible Allergenicity” (the Codex Allergenicity Annex). The comment also stated that FDA should make Codex guidance a mandatory part of its guidance.

(Response) FDA agrees in part and disagrees in part. FDA notes that its recommendations in this guidance are consistent with the approach recommended in the Codex Plant Guideline. In fact, FDA references the Codex Plant Guideline as a resource to be consulted by a developer in evaluating the food safety of a new protein. However, FDA notes that the Codex Plant Guideline addresses a broad range of issues associated with food safety assessment of food derived from bioengineered plants. While FDA's guidance is consistent with the Codex Plant Guideline, it does not address the entire broad range of issues as that document. FDA's guidance is focused on the food safety issues that might arise from the intermittent, low-level presence of material from a plant being developed for food and feed use. FDA believes that any potential risk from the intermittent, low level presence of such material in the food supply would be limited to the food safety of the new proteins. FDA references the Codex Plant Guideline, paragraphs 34-43 under Expressed Substances (non-nucleic acid substances) and the Codex Allergenicity Annex, for that component of the safety review.

FDA disagrees with the comment's suggestion that the agency make the Codex Plant Guideline a mandatory part of its guidance. While FDA believes that the Codex Plant Guideline and the Codex Allergenicity Annex are useful documents, it recognizes that other approaches may also be appropriate.

(Comment 7) One comment stated that while the information to be collected is essential and important for FDA to obtain, the information is inadequate to fulfill FDA's “stated and mandated goals,” and therefore it is of questionable utility.

(Response) FDA disagrees. The guidance is properly focused on the food safety assessment of a new protein produced in a new plant variety when there might be a low level, intermittent presence of material from a plant being developed for food. Although the commenter would like more information to be presented for FDA review at this stage, FDA notes that more information is not necessary because the information that the guidance recommends a developer collect and present to FDA as part of a food safety evaluation of a protein is adequate for the specific assessment that FDA is making at this stage. FDA recommends that a broader scope of information be presented to FDA for review at subsequent evaluation stages. For example, when a developer utilizes the recommendations articulated in FDA's guidance entitled, “Consultation Procedures for New Plant Varieties” (available at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/consulpr.html), FDA expects that significantly more information will be presented during the consultation.

(Comment 8) Several comments challenged the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information. These comments opined that FDA should collect more extensive information than what is proposed in the guidance, and they concluded, therefore, that FDA had underestimated the burden of the proposed information collection. The comments did not challenge the accuracy of the burden estimate for the information as proposed in the guidance.

(Response) FDA notes that the comments did not challenge the accuracy of FDA's estimate, rather they challenged what FDA recommends in the guidance. FDA believes that the estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information is accurate.

FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

Hours Per ResponseTotal HoursFirst four data components20120480Two other data components2012016320Total4001There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.One Time Burden

Completing an early food safety evaluation for a new protein from a new plant variety will be a one-time burden (one evaluation per new protein). FDA cannot know how many developers will choose to complete an early food safety evaluation for their new plant protein. Many developers of novel plants may choose not to submit an evaluation because the field testing of a plant containing a new protein is conducted in such a way (e.g., on such a small scale, or in such isolated conditions, etc.) that cross-pollination with traditional crops or commingling of plant material is not likely to be an issue. Also, other developers may have previously communicated with FDA about the food safety of a new plant protein, for example, when the same protein was expressed in a different crop.

FDA scientists predict that this draft guidance will generate about 20 to 150 early food safety evaluations yearly. While there is uncertainty as to the number of developers who will choose to submit an evaluation, FDA estimates that the annual number of early food safety evaluations will be closer to the lower bound estimate of 20 evaluations rather than the upper bound estimate of 150 evaluations. This estimation is supported by the fact that on average there have been nine initial biotechnology consultations per year. An initial biotechnology consultation has traditionally been the first discussion between a developer and FDA about a food made from a new bioengineered plant variety; it is usually bioengineered varieties of plants that are the subject of a consultation with FDA.

Evaluation Components

The early food safety evaluation for new proteins includes six main data components. Four of these data components are easily and quickly obtainable, having to do with the identity and source of the protein. FDA estimates that completing these data components will take about 4 hours per evaluation. In table 1 of this document, row 1 shows that for 20 evaluations, the total burden for these 4 data components is 80 hours.

Two data components ask for original data to be generated. One data component consists of a bioinformatics analysis which can be performed using publicly available databases. The other data component involves `wet' lab work to assess the new protein's stability and the resistance of the protein to enzymatic degradation using appropriate in vitro assays (protein digestibility study).

The paperwork burden of these two data components consists of the time it takes the company to put together the information on these two data components to submit to FDA. We estimate that these two data components will take 16 hours to complete (8 hours for each component). In Table 1 of this document, row 2 shows that for 20 evaluations, the total burden for these two data components is 320 hours.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES:

Fax written comments on the collection of information by March 13, 2006.

ADDRESSES:

OMB is still experiencing significant delays in the regular mail, including first class and express mail, and messenger deliveries are not being accepted. To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: Fumie Yokota, Desk Officer for FDA, FAX: 202-395-6974.

In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

Financial Disclosure by Clinical Investigators—(OMB Control Number 0910-0396)—Extension

Respondents are sponsors of marketing applications that contain clinical data from studies covered by the regulations. These sponsors represent pharmaceutical, biologic and medical device firms. The applicant will incur reporting costs in order to comply with the final rule. Applicants will be required to submit, for example, the complete list of clinical investigators for each covered study, not employed by the applicant and/or sponsor of the covered study, and either certify to the absence of certain financial arrangements with clinical investigators or disclose the nature of those arrangements to FDA and the steps taken by the applicant or sponsor to minimize the potential for bias. The clinical investigator will have to supply information regarding financial interests or payments held in the sponsor of the covered study. FDA has said that it has no preference as to how this information is collected from investigators and that sponsors/applicants have the flexibility to collect the information in the most efficient and least burdensome manner that will be effective. FDA estimated that the total reporting costs of sponsors would be less than $450,000 annually. Costs could also occur after a marketing application is submitted if FDA determines that the financial interests of an investigator raise significant questions about the integrity of the data.

FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:

Table 1.—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden121 CFR SectionNo. of

Respondents

Annual Frequency

per Response

Total Annual

Responses

Hours Per ResponseTotal Hours54.4(a)(1) and (a)(2)1,00011,00055,00054.4(a)(3)1001100202,00054.446,000.2511,500.111,500Total18,5001There are no capital cost or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

The sponsors of covered studies will be required to maintain complete records of compensation agreements with any compensation paid to nonemployee clinical investigators, including information showing any financial interests held by the clinical investigator, for a time period of 2 years after the date of approval of the applications. This time is consistent with the current recordkeeping requirements for other information related to marketing applications for human drugs, biologics, and medical devices. Currently, sponsors of covered studies must maintain many records with regard to clinical investigators, including protocol agreements and investigator resumes or curriculum vitae. FDA estimates than an average of 15 minutes will be required for each recordkeeper to add this record to clinical investigators' file.

Table 2.—Estimated Annual Recordkeeping Burden121 CFR SectionNo. of

Recordkeepers

Annual Frequency per

Recordkeeping

Total Annual RecordsHours Per

Recordkeeper

Total Hours54.61,00011,000.25250Total2501There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

In the Federal Register of August 25, 2005 (70 FR 49928), FDA announced the availability of the draft guidance and requested comments for 60 days on the information collection. No comments were received regarding this information collection.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES:

Fax written comments on the collection of information by March 13, 2006.

ADDRESSES:

OMB is still experiencing significant delays in the regular mail, including first class and express mail, and messenger deliveries are not being accepted. To ensure that comments on the information collection are received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: Fumie Yokota, Desk Officer for FDA, FAX: 202-395-6974.

In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.

General Administrative Procedures: Citizen Petitions; Petition for Reconsideration or Stay of Action; Advisory Opinions—(OMB Control Number 0910-0183)—Extension

The Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 553(e)), provides that every agency shall give an interested person the right to petition for issuance, amendment, or repeal of a rule. Under part 10 (21 CFR part 10), § 10.30 sets forth the format and procedures by which an interested person may submit to FDA, in accordance with § 10.20 (submission of documents to the Division of Dockets Management (DDM)), a citizen petition requesting the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner) to issue, amend, or revoke a regulation or order, or to take or refrain from taking any other form of administrative action.

The Commissioner may grant or deny such a petition, in whole or in part, and may grant such other relief or take other action as the petition warrants. Respondents are individuals or households, State or local governments, not-for-profit institutions, and businesses or other for-profit institutions or groups.

Section 10.33, issued under section 701(a) of the Federal, Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 371(a)), sets forth the format and procedures by which an interested person may request reconsideration of part or all of a decision of the Commissioner in a petition submitted under § 10.25 (initiation of administrative proceedings). A petition for reconsideration must contain in a well-organized format a full statement of the factual and legal grounds upon which the petition relies. The grounds must demonstrate that relevant information and views contained in the administrative record were not previously or not adequately considered by the Commissioner. The respondent must submit a petition no later than 30 days after the decision has been made. However, the Commissioner may, for good cause, permit a petition to be filed after 30 days. An interested person who wishes to rely on information or views not included in the administrative record shall submit them with a new petition to modify the decision. FDA uses the information provided in the request to determine whether to grant the petition for reconsideration. Respondents to this collection of information are individuals or households, State or local governments, not-for-profit institutions, and businesses or other for-profit institutions who are requesting a reconsideration of a matter from the Commissioner.

Section 10.35, issued under section 701(a) of the act, sets forth the format and procedures by which an interested person may request, in accordance with § 10.20 (submission of documents to DDM), the Commissioner to stay the effective date of any administrative action.

Such a petition must provide the following information: (1) The decision involved; (2) the action requested, including the length of time for which a stay is requested; and (3) a statement of the factual and legal grounds on which the interested person relies in seeking the stay. FDA uses the information provided in the request to determine whether to grant the petition for a stay of action. Respondents to this information collection are interested persons who choose to file a petition for an administrative stay of action.

Section 10.85, issued under section 701(a) of the act, sets forth the format and procedures by which an interested person may request, in accordance with § 10.20 (submission of documents to the DDM), an advisory opinion from the Commissioner on a matter of general applicability. An advisory opinion represents the formal position of FDA on a matter of general applicability. When making a request, the petitioner must provide a concise statement of the issues and questions on which an opinion is requested, and a full statement of the facts and legal points relevant to the request. Respondents to this collection of information are interested persons seeking an advisory opinion from the Commissioner on the agency's formal position for matters of general applicability.

In the Federal Register of November 16, 2005 (70 FR 69574), FDA published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the information collection provisions. No comments were received.

Table 1.—Estimated Annual Reporting Burden121 CFR SectionNo. of RespondentsAnnual Frequency per ResponseTotal Annual ResponsesHours per ResponseTotal Hours10.301563468125,61610.33102201020010.35132261026010.852121632Total6,1081There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.Dated: February 6, 2006.Jeffrey Shuren,Assistant Commissioner for Policy.[FR Doc. E6-1846 Filed 2-9-06; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4160-01-SDEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICESFood and Drug Administration[Docket No. 2005P-0104]Determination That PEPTAVLON (Pentagastrin) for Subcutaneous Injection, 0.25 Milligrams per Milliliter, Was Not Withdrawn From Sale for Reasons of Safety or EffectivenessAGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:

Notice.

SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined that PEPTAVLON (pentagastrin) for subcutaneous injection, 0.25 milligrams (mg) per milliliter (mL), was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination will allow FDA to approve abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for pentagastrin for subcutaneous injection, 0.25 mg/mL.

In 1984, Congress enacted the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Public Law 98-417) (the 1984 amendments), which authorized the approval of duplicate versions of drug products approved under an ANDA procedure. ANDA sponsors must, with certain exceptions, show that the drug for which they are seeking approval contains the same active ingredient in the same strength and dosage form as the “listed drug,” which is typically a version of the drug that was previously approved. Sponsors of ANDAs do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA). The only clinical data required in an ANDA are data to show that the drug that is the subject of the ANDA is bioequivalent to the listed drug.

The 1984 amendments include what is now section 505(j)(7) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(7)), which requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the “Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” which is generally known as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, drugs are withdrawn from the list if the agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness, or if FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162).

PEPTAVLON for subcutaneous injection is the subject of approved NDA 17-048 held by Wyeth Ayerst Laboratories (Wyeth Ayerst). PEPTAVLON (pentagastrin) for subcutaneous injection is a testing agent to help diagnose problems or diseases of the stomach. This test determines how much acid a patient's stomach produces.

PEPTAVLON for subcutaneous injection, 0.25 mg/mL, was approved on July 26, 1974. Wyeth Ayerst ceased manufacture of PEPTAVLON for subcutaneous injection, 0.25 mg/mL, in March 2002, and requested that FDA withdraw approval of the NDA (68 FR 49481, August 18, 2003). Therefore, it was moved from the “Prescription Drug Product List” to the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” delineates, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness.

Under 21 CFR 314.161(a)(3), the agency must determine whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness when a person petitions for such a determination under 21 CFR 10.25(a) and § 10.30 (21 CFR 10.30).

Arnall Golden Gregory LLP submitted a citizen petition dated March 7, 2005 (Docket No. 2005P-0104/CP1), under § 10.30, requesting that the agency determine whether PEPTAVLON (pentagastrin) for subcutaneous injection, 0.25 mg/mL, was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. After considering the citizen petition and reviewing agency records, FDA has determined that PEPTAVLON for subcutaneous injection, 0.25 mg/mL, approved under NDA 17-048, was not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. The petitioner identified no data or other information suggesting that PEPTAVLON (pentagastrin) for subcutaneous injection, 0.25 mg/mL, was withdrawn from sale as a result of safety or effectiveness concerns. FDA's independent evaluation of relevant literature and data has not uncovered anything that would indicate that this product was withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. Accordingly, the agency will continue to list PEPTAVLON (pentagastrin) for subcutaneous injection, 0.25 mg/mL, in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. ANDAs that refer to PEPTAVLON for subcutaneous injection, 0.25 mg/mL, may be approved by the agency.

The Houston/Galveston Navigation Safety Advisory Committee (HOGANSAC) and its working groups will meet to discuss waterway improvements, aids to navigation, area projects impacting safety on the Houston Ship Channel, and various other navigation safety matters in the Galveston Bay area. All meetings will be open to the public.

DATES:

The next meeting of HOGANSAC will be held on Thursday, February 23, 2006 at 1 p.m. The meeting of the Committee's working groups will be held on Thursday, February 9, 2006 at 9 a.m. The meetings may adjourn early if all business is finished. Members of the public may present written or oral statements at either meeting. Requests to make oral presentations or distribute written materials at the full HOGANSAC meeting should reach the Coast Guard five (5) working days before that meeting. Requests to have written materials distributed to each member of the full committee in advance of their meeting should reach the Coast Guard at least ten (10) working days before the full HOGANSAC meeting.

ADDRESSES:

The full Committee meeting will be held at the Charles P. Doyle Convention Center, 2010 5th Avenue North, Texas City, Texas 77590, (409-948-3111). The working groups meeting will be held at Coast Guard Sector Houston-Galveston, 9640 Clinton Dr. Houston, TX 77029 (713-671-5100). This notice is available on the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov.

Working Groups Meeting. The tentative agenda for the working groups meeting includes the following:

(1) Presentation by each working group of its accomplishments and plans for the future.

(2) Review and discuss the work completed by each working group.

Procedural

Working groups have been formed to examine the following issues: Dredging and related issues, electronic navigation systems, AtoN knockdowns, impact of passing vessels on moored ships, boater education issues, facilitating deep draft movements and mooring infrastructure. Not all working groups will provide a report at this session. Further, working group reports may not necessarily include discussions on all issues within the particular working group's area of responsibility. All meetings are open to the public. Please note that the meetings may adjourn early if all business is finished. Members of the public may make presentations, oral or written, at either meeting. Requests to make oral presentations or distribute written materials at the full HOGANSAC meeting should reach the Coast Guard five (5) working days before that meeting. Requests to have written materials distributed to each member of the full committee in advance of their meeting should reach the Coast Guard at least ten (10) working days before the full HOGANSAC meeting and should include fifteen (15) copies of the materials.

Information on Services for the Handicapped

For information on facilities or services for the handicapped or to request special assistance at the meetings, contact the Executive Director, Executive Secretary, or Assistant to the Executive Secretary as soon as possible.

The Coast Guard announces the availability of MARSEC Directive 104-06. This MARSEC Directive provides guidelines for U.S. vessels operating in high risk waters. Information within this MARSEC Directive is designated Sensitive Security Information (SSI) and is not subject to public release.

DATES:

The MARSEC Directive will be available on February 10, 2006.

ADDRESSES:

This MARSEC Directive is available at the following Captain of the Port (COTP) offices:

If you have questions on this notice, contact LCDR Rob McLellan, Coast Guard, telephone 202-267-4129.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:What Action Is the Coast Guard Taking?

The Coast Guard is issuing MARSEC Directive 104-6 for those owners and operators of vessels subject to 33 CFR parts 101 and 104 to provide direction to U.S. flagged vessels operating in high risk areas where acts of piracy and armed robbery against ships is prevalent. Owners and operators have the primary responsibility for ensuring the security of their vessels. Owners and operators must include the performance standards listed in the MARSEC Directive in their vessel security plans.

The performance standards do not impose new industry requirements but provide supplemental direction to assist with the development of vessel security plans required by 33 CFR parts 101 and 104.

To ensure these performance standards are disseminated efficiently and consistently, Coast Guard Area/District Commanders and COTPs will notify appropriate owners and operators of vessels regulated under 33 CFR parts 101 and 104. The COTP or Area/District Commander will confirm, prior to distributing the MARSEC Directive, that the individual(s) is a “covered person” with a “need to know”, and that the MARSEC Directive will be safeguarded as SSI as defined in 49 CFR part 1520.

Owners/operators of vessels regulated under 33 CFR parts 101 and 104 may also contact the local COTP to obtain a copy of the applicable MARSEC Directive. Local COTP contact information can be found in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

Why Is the Coast Guard Taking This Action?

The Coast Guard is issuing this MARSEC Directive to assist owners and operators of the affected maritime industries in developing security procedures to deter acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea for incorporation into vessel security plans required by 33 CFR part 104.

The MARSEC Directive contains SSI. If disclosed, the SSI could be used to subvert or exploit the security programs of vessels. Therefore, this MARSEC Directive is not subject to public disclosure, in accordance with 46 U.S.C. 40119.

This notice advises the public of the quarterly Internal Revenue Service interest rates used to calculate interest on overdue accounts (underpayments) and refunds (overpayments) of customs duties. For the calendar quarter beginning January 1, 2006, the interest rates for overpayments will be 6 percent for corporations and 7 percent for non-corporations, and the interest rate for underpayments will be 7 percent. This notice is published for the convenience of the importing public and Customs and Border Protection personnel.

Pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1505 and Treasury Decision 85-93, published in the Federal Register on May 29, 1985 (50 FR 21832), the interest rate paid on applicable overpayments or underpayments of customs duties must be in accordance with the Internal Revenue Code rate established under 26 U.S.C. 6621 and 6622. Section 6621 was amended (at paragraph (a)(1)(B) by the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Public Law 105-206, 112 Stat. 685) to provide different interest rates applicable to overpayments: one for corporations and one for non-corporations.

The interest rates are based on the Federal short-term rate and determined by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on behalf of the Secretary of the Treasury on a quarterly basis. The rates effective for a quarter are determined during the first-month period of the previous quarter.

In Revenue Ruling 2005-78, the IRS determined the rates of interest for the calendar quarter beginning January 1, 2006, and ending March 31, 2006. The interest rate paid to the Treasury for underpayments will be the Federal short-term rate (4%) plus three percentage points (3%) for a total of seven percent (7%). For corporate overpayments, the rate is the Federal short-term rate (4%) plus two percentage points (2%) for a total of six percent (6%). For overpayments made by non-corporations, the rate is the Federal short-term rate (4%) plus three percentage points (3%) for a total of seven percent (7%). These interest rates are subject to change for the calendar quarter beginning April 1, 2006, and ending June 30, 2006.

For the convenience of the importing public and Customs and Border Protection personnel the following list of IRS interest rates used, covering the period from before July of 1974 to date, to calculate interest on overdue accounts and refunds of customs duties, is published in summary format.

This Notice announces an extension of the deadline for implementation of Section 7105 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users. This provision requires operators of commercial motor vehicles registered to operate in Canada or Mexico who transport placarded loads of hazardous materials or any quantity of a material listed as a select agent or toxin in 42 CFR part 73 within the United States to undergo a background check similar to that required for U.S. operators with a hazardous materials endorsement. The Transportation Security Administration is extending the implementation deadline for the requirements under Section 7105 from February 10, 2006 to August 10, 2006, unless the Transportation Security Administration issues a Notice or other regulatory action before that date with an earlier date for implementing the requirements under the statute.

On August 10, 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) 1 was enacted. Section 7105 of the SAFETEA-LU provides that a commercial motor vehicle operator registered to operate in Canada or Mexico shall not operate a commercial motor vehicle transporting hazardous materials in commerce in the United States until the operator has undergone a background records check similar to that required of commercial motor vehicle operators licensed in the United States to transport hazardous materials in commerce. This requirement becomes effective 6 months after enactment of the SAFETEA-LU, which would be February 10, 2006. However, the statute also gives TSA the discretion to extend the implementation date an additional six months if necessary. This Notice announces TSA's decision to extend the implementation date until such time as TSA issues a separate notice or regulatory action to implement the SAFETEA-LU requirements, but no later than August 10, 2006.

Accordingly, the effective date of section 7105 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) is extended to August 10, 2006, unless TSA issues a Notice or other regulatory action before that date with an earlier date for implementing the requirements under the statute.

Issued in Arlington, Virginia, on February 6, 2006.Kip Hawley,Assistant Secretary.[FR Doc. 06-1247 Filed 2-7-06; 1:47 pm]BILLING CODE 4910-62-MDEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [ES-020-06-1320-EL] Notice of Availability of the Environmental Assessment and Public Hearing for Coal Lease by Application KYES-50213 AGENCY:

The Bureau of Land Management, Eastern States Office, Springfield, Virginia, hereby gives notice that an Environmental Assessment (EA) is available and a public hearing will be held to lease Federal coal pursuant to 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 3425.4. The EA analyzes and discloses direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of issuing competitively a Federal coal lease for 314.53 acres in the Daniel Boone National Forest (DBNF) Clay County, Kentucky. The purpose of the public hearing is to solicit comments from the public on (1) The proposal to issue a Federal coal lease; (2) the proposed competitive lease sale; (3) the Fair Market Value (FMV) of the Federal coal; and (4) Maximum Economic Recovery (MER) of the Federal coal included in the tracts.

DATES:

Written comments must be post-marked by March 13, 2006 and provided to the BLM Jackson Field Office (listed below). The public hearing will be held at the Clay County Public Library on February 27, 2006 at 6 pm.

ADDRESSES:

Written comments should be addressed to the Bureau of Land Management, Jackson Field Office, 411 Briarwood, Suite 404, Jackson, MS 39206 where copies of the EA are available upon request or for inspection. The public hearing will be held on February 27, 2006 at 6 p.m. at the Clay County Public Library located at 211 Bridge Street, in Manchester, Kentucky.

On December 3, 1998 Chas Coal LLC submitted a lease by application serialized as KYES-50213. The coal in the LBA is to be developed by conventional underground methods. The tracts, designated 545b and 3094 Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 in the National Forest System, are located on the upper end of the Left Fork of Blue Hole Creek in southern Clay County on the DBNF and encompass 314.53 acres. Estimated recoverable federal reserves of bituminous coal from the Hazard No. 8 seam are 792,335 tons. The proximate analysis of the coal is as follows: 14,033 BTU/lb. with 2.12% moisture, 0.87 sulfur, 5.03 ash, 54.26 fixed carbon, and 38.58 volatile matter.

The EA consists of an analyst of environmental impacts that could result from leasing Federal coal and the alternatives. In accordance with the Federal coal management regulations 43 CFR 3422 and 3425, not less than 30 days prior to the publication of a notice of sale, the Secretary shall solicit public comments on the EA, FMV and MER of the tracts proposed to be offered for lease and on factors that may affect FMV and MER. In addition, notice is also given that a public hearing will be held on (insert hearing date) requesting comments on the EA, FMV, and MER.

Procedures for leasing Federal coal are provided by 43 CFR 3400. The United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (lead agency) the Bureau of Land Management-Eastern States' Jackson Field Office, the U.S. Department of the Interior Office of Surface Mining, and the Kentucky Department of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, cooperative agencies, prepared a Land Use Analysis and Environmental Assessment (LUA/EA) to address coal lease application KYES-50213. The DBNF, Redbird Ranger District mailed scoping letters to all individuals on the district mailing list requesting public input on the LUA/EA in 1999, and again on May 28, 2004. Public Notices requesting input concerning this tract was published in the Manchester Enterprise, Manchester, Kentucky, on June 3, 2004, and June 10, 2004, and on the DBNF web site. The DBNF signed a Decision Record consenting to allow leasing and signed a Finding of No Significant Impact.

Comments on the EA, FMV, and MER should address, but are not limited to the following factors:

1. The method of mining to be employed in order to obtain MER;

2. The method of determining FMV for the coal to be offered;

3. The quality and quantity of the coal resource;

4. If this resource is likely to be mined as part of an existing mine;

5. The price that the mined coal would bring when sold;

6. Costs, including mining and reclamation, of producing the coal and the times of production and impacts the leasehold may have on the area;

7. Depreciation and other tax accounting factors;

8. The percentage rate at which anticipated income streams should be discounted, either in the absence of inflation or with inflation, in which case the anticipated rate of inflation should be given;

9. Any comparable sales data of similar coal lands; and

10. Restrictions to mining which may affect coal recovery.

The values given above may or may not change as a result of comments received from the public and changes in market conditions between now and when final economic evaluations are completed.

As provided by 43 CFR 3422.1(a), proprietary data marked as confidential may be provided in response to this solicitation of public comments. Data so marked shall be treated in accordance with the laws and regulations governing the confidentiality of such information. A copy of the comments submitted by the public on FMV and MER, except those portions identified as proprietary and meeting exemptions stated in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), will be available for public inspection at the Bureau of Land Management office noted above.

If you wish to withhold your name or address from public review or from disclosure under the FOIA, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your written comments. Such requests will be honored to the extent allowed by the FOIA. All submissions from organizations, businesses and individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses will be available for public inspection in its entirety.

Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA) and associated regulations, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announces the availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that evaluates, analyzes, and discloses to the public direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of a proposal to extract and transport natural gas and oil in Uintah County, Utah.

DATES:

The DEIS will be available for review for 45 calendar days following the date that the Environmental Protection Agency publishes its NOA in the Federal Register. The BLM can best use comments and resource information submitted within this 45-day review period.

ADDRESSES:

Written comments on the DEIS may be mailed directly or delivered to the BLM at: GDBR DEIS, Bureau of Land Management, Vernal Field Office, 170 South 500 East, Vernal, UT 84078. Comments may be submitted by facsimile to the Vernal Field Office at 435-781-4410. At this time BLM is unable to accept electronic comments. A copy of the DEIS has been sent to the affected Federal, State, and local government agencies, Indian Tribes and to interested parties. Copies of the DEIS are available for public inspection at the address above and the Bureau of Land Management Utah State Office, 440 West 200 South, Suite 500, Salt Lake City, UT 84101 and the Bureau of Land Management, Vernal Field Office, 150 South 500 East, Vernal, UT 84078.

In response to a proposal submitted by Questar E&P (QEP), the BLM published in the December 19, 2003, Federal Register a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

The Greater Deadman Bench Region (GDBR) involves approximately 98,785 acres located in Townships 6 to 8 South, Ranges 21 and 25 East, Salt Lake Base Meridian, about 20 miles south of Vernal, Uintah County, Utah. The DEIS analyzes the effects of a maximum natural gas and oil development scenario within the GDBR that is conceptual in nature. The final location of well pads, roads, and pipelines would be determined through future site-specific assessments required for each facility. QEP's proposal includes drilling an additional 1,020 natural gas and 219 oil wells and constructing associated ancillary transportation and transmission facilities within the project area. BLM-administered lands account for about 85% (83,860 acres) of surface and mineral estate lands within the BDGR. The State of Utah's Utah State School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration accounts for about 12% (1,440 acres) of surface and mineral estate lands; and the remaining 4% (3,470 acres) consists of various privately owned surface and mineral estate lands within the project area. QEP proposes to drill 1,239 wells at the rate of 100-120 wells per year over a period of 10 years, or until the resource base is fully developed. Of this total number, 891 wells would be drilled at new locations and 348 wells would be drilled from existing well pads.

As set out in the NOI, as of March 2003, the GDBR includes about 278 existing oil and water-injection wells producing from or injecting water into the Green River formation and 300 gas wells producing from the Wasatch formation. About 57 miles of primary roads and 314 miles of secondary roads have been constructed within the region. The new gas wells would be drilled to the Uinta, Green River, Wasatch, Mesaverde, Blackhawk/Mancos, and the Frontier/Dakota formations. The new oil wells would be drilled to the Green River formation.

The DEIS describes in detail and analyzes the impacts of QEP's Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. The Proposed Action incorporates standard operating procedures and applicant-committed best management practices currently employed on BLM-administered public lands in the Uintah Basin that mitigate impacts to the environment. Six additional alternatives were considered but eliminated from detailed analysis. The following is a summary of the alternatives:

1. Proposed Action—Up to 1,020 natural gas and 219 oil wells would be drilled to the Uinta, Green River, Wasatch, Mesaverde Group, Blackhawk/Mancos and the Frontier/Dakota formations. About 170 miles of new roads and 235 miles of pipelines, 22 new central tank facilities and 15 new gas compressor stations would be constructed to support this proposed development. At this time the Proposed Action is the BLM's preferred alternative.

2. No Action Alternative—Oil and gas development on Federal lands under the Proposed action would not be implemented. However some level of development would continue to occur under APDs previously approved by the authority of the 1985 Book Cliffs RMP. An additional 130 wells would be located on State of Utah and private leases.

3. Alternatives Considered, But Eliminated From Further Analysis—

a. No new development on Federal lands.

b. Suspension of operations for an extended period of time.

c. Exchange of leases.

d. Full-field directional Drilling.

e. Conventional oil and gas development.

f. Best Management Practices (BMP).

The public is encouraged to comment on any of these alternatives.

The BLM welcomes your comments on the Greater Deadman Bench Region DEIS. The BLM asks that those submitting comments make them as specific as possible with reference to chapters, page numbers, and paragraphs in the DEIS document. Comments that contain only opinions or preferences will not receive a formal response; however, they will be considered as part of the BLM decision-making process. The most useful comments will contain new technical or scientific information, identify data gaps in the impact analysis, or will provide technical or scientific rationale for opinions or preferences. It is BLM's practice to make comments, including the names and street addresses of each respondent, available for public review at the BLM office listed above during business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m), Monday through Friday, except for Federal holidays. Your comments may be published as part of the EIS process. Individual respondents may request confidentiality.

If you wish to withhold your name or street address, or both, from public review, or from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your written comments. Such requests will be honored to the extent allowed by law. BLM will not consider anonymous comments. All submissions from organizations or businesses will be made available for public inspection in their entirety.

William Stringer, Vernal Field Manager. [FR Doc. E6-1796 Filed 2-9-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310-22-P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [UT-080-05-1310-EJ] Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Gasco Production Company Natural Gas Field Development, Duchesne and Uintah Counties, UT AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION:

Notice of Intent to conduct public scoping and to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Gasco Natural Gas Field Development, Duchesne and Uintah Counties, Utah.

SUMMARY:

Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Vernal Field Office, Vernal, Utah, will prepare an EIS on the proposed expansion of existing natural gas field development operations. The EIS area encompasses approximately 236,165 acres predominately in the West Tavaputs Exploration and Development Area with some overlap into the Monument Butte-Red Wash, and East Tavaputs Exploration and Development Areas. The project is located primarily on BLM administered lands (203,357 acres). The project area also includes lands administered by the State of Utah (27,765 acres), and several private landowners (5,043 acres). Gasco has mineral lease rights underlying both the public and private lands. The Vernal Field Office Manager will be the authorized officer for this project.

DATES:

This notice announces the public scoping process. A public scoping period of at least 30 days will commence on the date this notice is published in the Federal Register. Comments on issues, potential impacts, or suggestions for additional alternatives can be submitted in writing to the address listed below within 30 days of the date this Notice is published, or within 15 days after the last public meeting is held. Public open meetings will be conducted during the scoping period in Vernal, Duchesne, and Price, Utah. All public meetings will be announced through the local news media at least 15 days prior to the event. In addition, formal opportunities for public participation will be provided through comment on the alternatives and upon publication of the BLM Draft EIS.

ADDRESSES:

Written scoping comments should be sent to the Environmental Coordinator, Bureau of Land Management, Vernal Field Office, 170 South 500 East, Vernal, Utah 84078, ATTN: Gasco Field Development EIS; Fax 435-781-4410. Documents pertinent to this proposal may be examined at the Vernal Field Office located in Vernal, Utah. Comments, including names and street addresses of respondents, will be available for public review at the Vernal Field Office located in Vernal, Utah during regular business hours 7:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays, and will be subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). They may be published as part of the EIS and other related documents. Individual respondents may request confidentially. If you wish to withhold your name or street address from public review or from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your written comment. Such requests will be honored to the extent allowed by law. All submissions from organizations and businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be available for public inspection in their entirety.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information and/or to have your name added to our mailing list, contact Stephanie Howard, 435-781-4469.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Gasco Production Company proposes to expand its operations by drilling 1,538 wells within the Monument Butte-Red Wash, West Tavaputs, and East Tavaputs Exploration and Development Areas (as delineated in the Draft Vernal RMP) through the year 2020 based on a 40, 80, and 160 acre spacing pattern. This EIS is directly north of, but not related to, the West Tavaputs EIS that is ongoing in the Price Field Office BLM. Estimated new surface disturbance associated with the construction of well pads, new access roads, and pipelines would be approximately 10,302 acres. Existing roads within the project area and approximately 400 miles of newly constructed roads would provide the primary access routes to the new well sites. Approximately 525 miles of pipelines would be constructed and buried where conditions allow. Additional compression and processing facilities will be required to accommodate the new wells.

Major issues include potential impacts to special status plants and animals, vegetation, socio-economics, cultural resources, air quality, and soils. The EIS will consider and analyze potential impacts of natural gas development at the levels projected by Gasco, or as refined during the scoping process. This analysis will include a site-specific evaluation of Gasco's proposal and an appropriate range of alternatives. Alternatives identified at this time include the proposed action and the no action alternatives. Additional alternatives such as application of additional mitigation measures based on best management practices and/or higher well density may be developed if necessary based on issues and concerns identified through the scoping process.

The management of BLM public lands and resources encompassed by the project area is directed and guided by the BLM's Record of Decision for the Diamond Mountain Resource Management Plan. The majority of the proposed project lies within an area that was previously partially developed for oil and gas production and is designated as Category 2 for oil and gas leasing by the BLM. Category 2 areas are those that are open to oil and gas leasing with stipulations to protect sensitive surface resources.

In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, and the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000, the BLM has prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement to analyze and undertake the North Steens Ecosystem Restoration Project. The proposed project area lies within the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area, designated by the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000, and the Andrews Management Unit, lands outside the boundary of the Cooperative Management and Protection Area but within the boundary of the Andrews Resource Area. The project is located in Harney County, Oregon, and affects approximately 336,000 acres of public and private lands.

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement evaluates five alternative management approaches including two No Action (continuation of current management and no treatment) Alternatives.

DATES:

Written comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be accepted for 45 days following publication of the Environmental Protection Agency's Notice of Availability for this Draft Environmental Impact Statement in the Federal Register. Future public meetings and any other public involvement activities will be announced in advance through notices, media news releases, and/or mailings.

ADDRESSES/COMMENTS:

Written comments should be sent to North Steens Ecosystem Restoration Project Environmental Impact Statement Lead, BLM Burns District Office, 28910, Highway 20 West, Hines, Oregon 97738; (541) 573-4543; fax (541) 573-4411; or e-mail (ornseis@blm.gov). Comments, including names, street addresses, and other contact information of respondents, will be available for public review. Individual respondents may request confidentiality. If you wish to request that BLM consider withholding your name, street address, and other contact information such as internet address, fax or phone number from public review or from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. The BLM will honor requests for confidentiality on a case-by-case basis to the extent allowed by law. The BLM will make available for public inspection in their entirety all submissions from organizations or businesses and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses.

Copies of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement will be sent to affected Federal, Tribal, State and local government agencies, and to interested publics and will be available at the BLM Burns District Office. The supporting record for the analysis for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is available for inspection at the BLM Burns District Office during normal business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, except holidays).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information and/or to have your name added to our mailing list, contact Douglas Linn (541) 573-4543 at the BLM Burns District Office.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The North Steens Ecosystem Restoration Project is a landscape-level project proposing to utilize a combination of western juniper treatments (mechanical and nonmechanical methods) and wildland (prescribed and natural) fire to treat fuels and to restore habitat. Implementation of the project would reduce the increased influence of western juniper and related fuels in mountain big sagebrush, low sagebrush, quaking aspen, mountain mahogany, old growth juniper (established before 1870), and riparian plant communities.

Section 113(c) of the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Act of 2000 states, “The Secretary shall emphasize the restoration of the historic fire regime in the Cooperative Management and Protection Area and the resulting native vegetation communities through active management of western juniper on a landscape level. Management measures shall include the use of natural and prescribed burning.”

The Resource Management Plans for the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area and the Andrews Management Unit contain overall direction and guidance for proposed management actions such as those analyzed in the North Steens Ecosystem Restoration Project Environmental Impact Statement. Management actions analyzed include seeding of native species, reduction of western juniper (established before 1870), fencing, and management of wildland fire.

Preliminary issues and management concerns were identified by BLM and through public scoping. Major issues addressed in the Environmental Impact Statement include management of woodlands, rangeland vegetation, Steens Mountain Wilderness, wilderness study areas, wild and scenic river corridors, wildlife habitat, special status species, wildland fire/fuels, recreation, cultural resources, noxious weeds, water quality, aquatic resources, fisheries, biological soil crusts, and social and economic values. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement considered American Indian traditional practices.

Cooperating agencies having specific expertise or interests in the project were invited to participate. The public and interest groups also participated and will continue to have every opportunity to participate during formal comment periods. The public and interest groups will also have opportunities for participation through the regularly scheduled Steens Mountain Advisory Council meetings.

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement contains five alternatives. The Continuation of Current Management No Action Alternative does not propose any increase above current levels of western juniper management or fuels reduction within the North Steens Ecosystem Restoration Project area. Private lands could still be treated according to landowner management objectives. Management of naturally occurring wildland fires would still occur in the North Steens Ecosystem Restoration Project area under this alternative, but management would be for purposes of restoring natural fire to the Cooperative Management and Protection Area.

The No Treatment No Action Alternative does not propose any fuels reduction through western juniper treatments. This alternative is not consistent with the Andrews Management Unit or Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area Resource Management Plan direction. This alternative does not meet the objectives of the North Steens Ecosystem Restoration Project but is analyzed for purposes of effect analysis and comparison. Under this alternative, encroaching juniper would not be managed in the North Steens Ecosystem Restoration Project area. Natural wildland fires would still occur in the project area and would be managed in a manner consistent with the Resource Management Plans and the BLM Burns District's Fire Management Plan.

The Partial Landscape Alternative proposes active fuels reduction and juniper management on private and public lands outside of wilderness, wilderness study areas, and wild and scenic river corridors. Management of naturally occurring wildland fires would still occur in the aforementioned areas under this alternative.

The Limited Landscape Alternative incorporates many of the description and features of the Partial Landscape Alternative. Management of naturally occurring wildland fires would occur in wilderness, wilderness study areas, and wild and scenic river corridor areas under this alternative and would include the use of prescribed wildland fire for western juniper management and fuels reduction and restoration of natural fire regimes.

The Full Landscape Alternative incorporates many of the description and features of the Partial Landscape Alternative and Limited Landscape Alternatives. The Full Landscape Alternative proposes active, landscape-level, western juniper management and fuels reduction on private and public lands including wilderness, wilderness study areas, and wild and scenic river corridors. Management of naturally occurring wildland fires would occur in the aforementioned areas under this alternative. Management could include the use of prescribed wildland fire, nonmotorized hand tools and nonmechanized transportation for western juniper management and fuels reduction. Additional treatment methods, including the use of other tools following publication of a minimum requirement decision guide, could be considered after a project review occurring on a 3- to 5-year basis.

Public input during scoping as well as internal scoping identified at least 20 issues for analysis in the Environmental Impact Statement. These issues are outlined in Chapter 1 of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.

Opportunities for public involvement have included two separate public scoping periods. Along with participation by the Steens Mountain Advisory Council, the BLM Burns District has worked with Harney County Court, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Eastern Oregon Agricultural Research Center, Burns Paiute Tribe, and Harney Soil and Water Conservation District.

In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Eastern Montana Resource Advisory Council will meet as indicated below.

DATES:

A meeting will be held March 22, 2006, at the Ft. Keogh Livestock and Range Research Laboratory, 243 Ft. Keogh Road, Miles City, Montana, 59301, beginning at 8 a.m. The public comment period will begin at 11:30 a.m.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The 15-member Council advises the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Land Management, on a variety of planning and management issues associated with public land management in eastern Montana. All meetings are open to the public. The public may present written comments to the Council. Each formal Council meeting will also have time allocated for hearing public comments. Depending on the number of persons wishing to comment and time available, the time for individual oral comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation, or other reasonable accommodations, should contact the BLM as provided below. The Council will hear updates on the Miles City Resource Management Plan, the Pumpkin Creek land exchange,the coal bed natural gas SEIS, weed funding, and other issues.

Per 30 U.S.C. 188(d), Valentine Peck timely filed a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas lease NDM 87262, Slope County, North Dakota. The lessee paid the required rental accruing from the date of termination, September 1, 2005.

No leases were issued that affect these lands. The lessee agrees to new lease terms for rentals and royalties of $10 per acre and 162/3 percent or 4 percentages above the existing competitive royalty rate. The lessee paid the $500 administration fee for the reinstatement of the lease and $155 cost for publishing this Notice.

The lessee met the requirements for reinstatement of the lease per Sec. 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188). We are proposing to reinstate the lease, effective the date of termination subject to:

This order partially revokes an Executive Order insofar as it affects 40 acres of public land withdrawn for the Bureau of Land Management's Power Site Reserve No. 32. This order also opens the land to surface entry subject to valid existing rights and other segregations of record.

This action will allow for completion of a pending land exchange and clear the records of an unneeded withdrawal. The land is open to mining under the provisions of the Mining Claims Rights Restoration Act, 30 U.S.C. 621 (2000). Since this act applies only to land withdrawn for power purposes, the provisions of the act are no longer applicable to the land included in this revocation order.

Order

By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714 (2000), and pursuant to the determination by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in DVCO-561-000, it is ordered as follows:

1. The Executive Order dated July 2, 1910, which established the Bureau of Land Management's Power Site Reserve No. 32, is hereby revoked insofar as it affects the following described land:

Sixth Principal MeridianT. 1 S., R. 80 W.,Sec. 34, SE1/4NW1/4.

The area described contains 40 acres in Summit County.

2. At 9 a.m. on May 12, 2006, the land described in Paragraph 1 will be opened to the operation of the public land laws generally, subject to valid existing rights, the provisions of existing withdrawals, other segregations of record, and the requirements of applicable law. All valid applications received on or prior to 9 a.m. on May 12, 2006, shall be considered as simultaneously filed at that time. Those received thereafter shall be considered in the order of filing.

3. The State of Colorado, with respect to the land described in Paragraph 1, has a preference right for public highway rights-of-way or material sites until May 11, 2006, and any location, entry, selection, or subsequent patent shall be subject to any rights granted the State as provided by the Act of June 10, 1920, section 24, as amended, 16 U.S.C. 818 (2000).

4. The land described in Paragraph 1 has been open to mining under the provisions of the Mining Claims Rights Restoration Act of 1955, 30 U.S.C. 621 (2000), and these provisions are no longer applicable.

Dated: January 25, 2006.Mark Limbaugh,Assistant Secretary of the Interior.[FR Doc. E6-1894 Filed 2-9-06; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4310-JB-PDEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [WO-300-1330-EO] Notice of a 30-Day Public Comment Period To Affirm the Policy for the Standards To Establish the Potash Enclave As Used To Administer the Secretarial Order of 1986 Entitled “Oil and Gas and Potash Leasing and Development Within the Designated Potash Area of Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico” AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION:

Notice of correction.

SUMMARY:

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) originally published this notice on Tuesday, August 30, 2005 [70 FR 51364] and solicited public comments on the report which affirms the existing policy on the criteria used to establish the potash enclave. The BLM gave the public 30 days to comment on these Policy Standards. The public comment period ended on Thursday, September 29, 2005. The BLM received numerous requests to lengthen the comment period. The BLM extended the comment period an additional 120 days. The BLM has again received requests to lengthen the comment period. The BLM will again extend the comment period an additional 120 days.

DATES:

Comments should be submitted to the address below no later than June 12, 2006.

To comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), MMS is inviting comments on a collection of information that we will submit to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. The information collection request (ICR) concerns the paperwork requirements in a Notice to Lessees and Operators (NTL) discussed below.

DATES:

Submit written comments by April 11, 2006.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments by any of the following methods listed below. Please use the Information Collection Number 1010-0137 as an identifier in your message.

• Public Connect on-line commenting system, https://ocsconnect.mms.gov. Follow the instructions on the Web site for submitting comments.

• E-mail MMS at rules.comments@mms.gov. Identify with Information Collection Number 1010-0137 in the subject line.

Abstract: The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands Act, as amended (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq. and 43 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), authorizes the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to prescribe rules and regulations to administer leasing of the OCS. Such rules and regulations will apply to all operations conducted under a lease. Operations on the OCS must preserve, protect, and develop oil and natural gas resources in a manner that is consistent with the need to make such resources available to meet the Nation's energy needs as rapidly as possible; to balance orderly energy resource development with protection of human, marine, and coastal environments; to ensure the public a fair and equitable return on the resources of the OCS; and to preserve and maintain free enterprise competition.

The OCSLA at 43 U.S.C. 1332(6) states that “operations in the [O]uter Continental Shelf should be conducted in a safe manner by well-trained personnel using technology, precautions, and techniques sufficient to prevent or minimize the likelihood of blowouts, loss of well control, fires, spillages, physical obstruction to other users of the waters or subsoil and seabed, or other occurrences which may cause damage to the environment or to property, or endanger life or health.”

The MMS's Historical Well Data Cleanup Project is currently underway and is expected to last several years to allow operators ample time to provide the missing or corrected data. This notice announces our intention to request a 3-year extension for this information collection.

The information we collect under this NTL, is missing data for wellbores that MMS has not assigned API numbers and other well data discovered as missing while completing the well database cleanup project. We are not able to manage and utilize data from drilling operations accurately without the information for the missing wells. We will use the information to identify other well data (e.g., logs, surveys, tests) missing from our records, geologically map existing MMS data to the correct wellbore/location, and correctly exchange information with the operators and industry. Our geoscientists can use the information to evaluate resources for lease sales for fair market value. With respect to safety concerns, we believe that there may be anywhere from 3,000 to 5,000 unidentified completed and abandoned wellbores (bypasses and sidetracks), some of which may contain stuck drill pipe or other materials. In approving permits and other operations in an area, it is important for us to know what may be adjacent to or near the vicinity of the activity we are approving to minimize the risk of blowouts, loss of well control, and endangerment to life, health, and the environment. This is particularly important as, over the years, the number of wells drilled constantly increases, thereby increasing the risk to adjacent activities if operators are not aware of what might be in the area.

We will protect information respondents submit that is considered proprietary under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) and its implementing regulations (43 CFR part 2) and 30 CFR 250.196, “Data and information to be made available to the public.” No items of a sensitive nature are collected. Responses are mandatory.

Frequency: On occasion.

Estimated Number and Description of Respondents: Approximately 130 Federal OCS oil, gas, and sulphur lessees.

Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Hour” Burden: The currently approved annual reporting burden for this collection is 56,250 hours for approximately 25,000 wells, based on:

(1) 1/4 hour to locate and copy a summary of drilling operations (e.g., scout tickets) for each well.

(2) 2 hours to retrieve and analyze each well file and retrieve other missing data. There are no recordkeeping requirements.

Estimated Reporting and Recordkeeping “Non-Hour Cost” Burden: We have identified no cost burdens for this collection.

Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) provides that an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Until OMB approves a collection of information, you are not obligated to respond.

Comments: Before submitting an ICR to OMB, PRA section 3506(c)(2)(A) requires each agency “ * * * to provide notice * * * and otherwise consult with members of the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of information * * *.” Agencies must specifically solicit comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the agency to perform its duties, including whether the information is useful; (b) evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Agencies must also estimate the “non-hour cost” burdens to respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection of information. Therefore, if you have costs to generate, maintain, and disclose this information, you should comment and provide your total capital and startup cost components or annual operation, maintenance, and purchase of service components. You should describe the methods you use to estimate major cost factors, including system and technology acquisition, expected useful life of capital equipment, discount rate(s), and the period over which you incur costs. Capital and startup costs include, among other items, computers and software you purchase to prepare for collecting information, monitoring, and record storage facilities. You should not include estimates for equipment or services purchased: (i) Before October 1, 1995; (ii) to comply with requirements not associated with the information collection; (iii) for reasons other than to provide information or keep records for the Government; or (iv) as part of customary and usual business or private practices.

We will summarize written responses to this notice and address them in our submission for OMB approval. As a result of your comments, we will make any necessary adjustments to the burden in our submission to OMB.

Public Comment Procedures: MMS's practice is to make comments, including names and addresses of respondents, available for public review. If you wish your name and/or address to be withheld, you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comment. MMS will honor this request to the extent allowable by law; however, anonymous comments will not be considered. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public inspection in their entirety.

The Minerals Management Service (MMS) requests comments on the Draft Proposed 5-year OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2007-2012. This is the first proposal for a new program to succeed the current program that expires on June 30, 2007, and forms the basis for conducting the studies and analyses the Secretary will consider in making future decisions on what areas to include in the program.

Section 18 of the OCS Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1344) specifies a multi-step process of consultation and analysis that must be completed before the Secretary of the Interior may approve a new 5-year program. The required steps following this notice include the development of a proposed program, a proposed final program, and Secretarial approval. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the MMS also will prepare an EIS for the new 5-year program.

DATES:

Please submit comments and information to the MMS no later than April 11, 2006.

Public Comment Procedure

The MMS will accept comments in one of two formats: by mail or our Internet commenting system. Please submit your comments using only one of these formats, and include full names and addresses. Comments submitted by other means may not be considered. We will not consider anonymous comments, and we will make available for inspection in their entirety all comments submitted by organizations and businesses or by individuals identifying themselves as representatives of organizations and businesses.

Our practice is to make comments, including the names and home addresses of respondents, available for public review. An individual commenter may ask that we withhold his or her name, home address, or both from the public record, and we will honor such a request to the extent allowable by law. If you submit comments and wish us to withhold such information, you must so state prominently at the beginning of your submission.

ADDRESSES:

Mail comments and information to: Renee Orr, 5-Year Program Manager, Minerals Management Service (MS-4010), Room 3120, 381 Elden Street, Herndon, Virginia 20170. Please label your comments and the packaging in which they are submitted according to the subject matter. Mark those pertaining to program preparation, “Comments on Draft Proposed 5-Year Program for 2007-2012,” and mark those pertaining to EIS preparation, “Scoping Comments on the EIS for the 5-Year Program for 2007-2012.” If you submit any privileged or proprietary information to be treated as confidential, please mark the envelope, “Contains Confidential Information.”

Internet: The MMS will accept comments submitted to our electronic commenting system. This system can be accessed at http://www.mms.gov/5-year/2007-2012main.htm. We also will provide access to information concerning the 5-year program and EIS, including copies of comments we receive in response to this notice, at the MMS Internet website (www.mms.gov).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Renee Orr, 5-Year Program Manager, at (703) 787-1215.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The MMS requests comments from states, local governments, Native groups, tribes, the oil and gas industry, federal agencies, environmental and other interest organizations, and all other interested parties to assist in the preparation of a 5-year OCS oil and gas leasing program for 2007-2012 and the applicable EIS.

The draft proposed program document may be downloaded off the MMS website at www.mms.gov. The document also is available as part of our electronic commenting system noted above. Hard copies will be made available by contacting the 5-Year Program Office at 703-787-1215.

Background

Section 18 of the OCS Lands Act requires the Secretary of the Interior to prepare and maintain a schedule of proposed OCS oil and gas lease sales determined to “best meet national energy needs for the 5-year period following its approval or reapproval.” This draft proposed program is the first proposed schedule of OCS lease sales for the 2007-2012 timeframe. The areas identified as proposed program areas in this notice are ones that warrant further study and analysis based on oil and gas resource estimates and comments received in response to the August 24, 2005 Request for Information. Inclusion of areas in the draft proposed lease sale schedule provides a basis for gathering information and conducting analyses to inform policy makers whether to include these areas for leasing consideration in the new 5-year program. Before the new 5-year program is approved and implemented, the MMS must accept and consider comments on the draft proposed program and issue for public review a proposed program, a draft EIS, a proposed final program, and a final EIS.

Summary of the Draft Proposed Program

In developing the draft proposed program for 2007-2012, the MMS considered leasing in the areas of the OCS that are included in the current 5-year program for 2002-2007 and additional areas off Alaska, the Gulf of Mexico, and Atlantic coast. Some of these areas are currently withdrawn from disposition by leasing through June 30, 2012, under section 12 of the OCS Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1341) and have been subject to annual congressional moratoria. There will be no leasing of such areas unless the President chooses to modify the withdrawal and Congress discontinues the annual statutory moratoria. The analyses conducted for the proposed program may provide the information necessary for a potential modification of the withdrawal areas. The draft program proposes sales in offshore areas that have the highest oil and gas resource values and highest industry interest or are off the coasts of states that have expressed interest in learning more about potential energy exploration off their coasts. The proposed schedule is responsive to the recommendations of affected state and local governments.

New Planning Area Boundaries

On January 3, 2006, the MMS published a notice in the Federal Register announcing the setting of Federal OCS administrative boundaries beyond state submerged lands for planning, coordination, and administrative purposes. The Supplementary Information in the January notice contained a section entitled “methodology.” Using equidistance as a method to establish maritime boundaries, in the absence of special circumstances or agreement to the contrary, is consistent with customary domestic and international law and conventions. It should also be noted that, although the three maps appended to the January 3, 2006 Notice depicted an extension of the shelf beyond the U.S. exclusive economic zone only in the Gulf of Mexico, this did not suggest that the United States does not have an extended shelf in other areas. Further, the depicted limits and boundaries do not prejudice or affect in any way United States sovereign rights or jurisdiction within or seaward of these limits and boundaries. Some of the planning area boundaries have been moved to correspond to the new administrative lines. The number of planning areas has not changed; it remains at 26. See Maps 1 and 2 for the redrawn planning areas.

Some aspects of this draft proposed plan use these administrative boundaries. Congress has recently considered several legislative proposals that would establish state seaward lateral boundaries for OCS revenue sharing and other purposes. If such legislation is passed before this plan becomes final, we would consider adjustments to the areas offered in this 5-year plan to reflect the same boundary lines, if appropriate.

Proposed Lease Sales for Consideration

The draft program proposes a total of 21 OCS lease sales in 7 areas (4 areas off Alaska, 2 areas in the Gulf of Mexico, and 1 area in the Atlantic). Maps A and B show the areas proposed for leasing. Table A lists the location and timing of the proposed lease sales in areas that are available for leasing consideration, i.e., not withdrawn or subject to congressional moratoria. Table B lists the location and timing of the proposed lease sales in areas that are withdrawn and/or subject to moratoria.

Alaska Region

In the Alaska Region, the draft program proposes multiple lease sales in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas and North Aleutian Basin Planning Areas, which are three areas of interest to Alaska, the MMS, and the oil and gas industry. Multiple sales are consistent with the Governor of Alaska's recommendations. The North Aleutian Basin Planning Area is currently withdrawn by presidential order under section 12 of the OCS Lands Act. In response to the August Request for Information, the Governor of Alaska stated that “[t]he borough governments and regional Native corporations in the vicinity of the North Aleutian Basin have all expressed support for including this area in the next draft of the 2007-2012 program. During the comment period on the draft, I hope that public and industry input will provide the Secretary and the state with adequate information to decide whether or not to ask the President to lift the current withdrawal and allow a sale during the 2007-2012 program.” In order to have this opportunity, the North Aleutian Basin is included in this proposal.

The Cook Inlet Planning Area is included on the schedule for a “special interest sale” as a potential source of natural gas for local residents and businesses. This approach was first used in the current program for 2002-2007. A special interest sale is one that may be held on a date chosen by the Secretary, after consideration of the comments received in response to annual calls for information.

Gulf of Mexico Region

In the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico Planning Areas, which are the two areas of highest resource potential and interest, the draft proposed program would continue the customary practice of scheduling annual areawide lease sales. As a result of the reconfiguration of some planning areas to follow the new administrative lines, some of the areas formerly in the Eastern and Western Gulf Planning Areas are now part of the Central Gulf Planning Area. As part of this draft proposed program, there are no lease sales scheduled in the newly configured Eastern Gulf Planning Area. Under this proposal, the Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Area would include a portion of the area that was identified for Sale 181 in the 5-year program for 1997-2002. This portion of the previous Sale 181 area is proposed for offering in 2007. The MMS has no intention of offering for leasing areas within 100 miles of the Florida coast that used to be part of the Eastern Gulf Planning Area. The original Sale 181 area is not under Presidential withdrawal and is not subject to congressional moratorium. Subsequent annual Central Gulf sales may consider the area to the south of the original Sale 181 area that is currently under Presidential withdrawal and has been subject to annual congressional moratorium, if both of those restrictions were to be lifted.

Atlantic OCS

There are four planning areas in the Atlantic OCS—North Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Straits of Florida. The draft proposed program proposes a “special interest sale” in the Mid-Atlantic in late 2011. The area proposed for consideration is in the Mid-Atlantic Planning Area off the coastline of Virginia. In its response to the August Request for Information, Virginia expressed a willingness to continue a dialogue that explores options regarding the energy resources off its coastline. Inclusion of this area in the draft proposed program will provide additional information to the State, the public, industry, and other interested parties about the impacts of exploration off this coast. This will also provide further information to the Secretary to consider whether or not to propose a “special interest sale” in the 2007-2012 program, should the President lift the current withdrawal and should Congress discontinue the annual moratorium. In addition, pursuant to Section 18 of the OCS Lands Act, no sale will be proposed until all affected states have the opportunity to comment. There have not been any lease sales in the Atlantic since the early 1980's. At this time, there are no active leases.

Section 18 of the OCS Lands Act requires receipt of fair market value for OCS oil and gas leases and the rights they convey. The draft proposed program provides for setting minimum bid levels by individual lease sale based on market conditions and for continuing to use a two-phase bid evaluation process.

Information Requested for the Draft Proposed Program

We request all interested and affected parties to comment on the size, timing, and location of leasing and the procedures for assuring fair market value that are proposed in the Draft Proposed 5-Year OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2007-2012. Respondents who submitted information in response to the August 24, 2005 Federal Register notice requesting comments on preparing the 5-year program for 2007-2012, may wish to reference that information, as appropriate, rather than repeating it in their comments on the draft proposed program. We also invite comments and suggestions on how to proceed with the section 18 analysis for the next draft of the new program, the proposed program.

Section 18(g) authorizes confidential treatment of privileged or proprietary information that is submitted. In order to protect the confidentiality of such information, respondents should include it as an attachment to other comments submitted and mark it appropriately. On request the MMS will treat such information as confidential from the time of its receipt until 5 years after approval of the new leasing program, subject to the standards of the Freedom of Information Act. The MMS will not treat as confidential any aggregate summaries of such information, the names of respondents, and comments not containing such information.

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Preparation

In accordance with section 102(2)(C) of the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)), MMS intends to prepare an EIS for the OCS oil and gas 5-year leasing program for 2007-2012 as we specified in the August 2005 notice. As part of the scoping under NEPA, this notice again solicits information regarding issues and alternatives that should be evaluated in the EIS. Comments submitted in response to the August notice need not be re-submitted.

The EIS will address the potential impacts of the adoption of the proposed 5-year program. The MMS requests respondents to focus comments on significant environmental issues attendant to OCS oil and gas leasing and development which should be evaluated in the EIS.

Public Scoping Meetings are planned for the EIS development. Further information will be posted on the 5-year webpage at www.mms.gov and other public notice. Dates and localities for all scoping meetings are being determined. For Atlantic scoping, information can be obtained from Norman Froomer at 703-787-1644 or via e-mail at Norman.Froomer@mms.gov. For Alaska scoping, information can be obtained from the Alaska OCS Region at 1-800-764-2627 or via e-mail at akwebmaster@mms.gov. For Gulf of Mexico scoping, information can be obtained from Dennis Chew at 504-736-2793 or via e-mail at Dennis.Chew@mms.gov.

We are considering possible alternatives to the proposed action, such as offering for lease only those areas offered during the previous 5-year program, or excluding areas currently under congressional moratoria or presidential withdrawal. We will also evaluate the No Action alternative as required by NEPA and its implementing regulations.

The MMS plans to issue the proposed program and draft EIS in mid-summer 2006 for a 90-day comment period. We plan to issue the proposed final program and final EIS in winter 2007. The Secretary may approve the new 5-year program 60 days later to go into effect as of July 1, 2007.

Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (PL 92-463) that the Boston Harbor Islands Advisory Council will hold its annual meeting on Wednesday, March 1, 2006. The meeting will convene at 6 p.m. at the Boston Children's Museum, 300 Congress Street, 5th floor, Boston, MA.

The Advisory Council was appointed by the Director of the National Park Service pursuant to Public Law 104-333. The 28 members represent business, educational/cultural, community and environmental entities; municipalities surrounding Boston Harbor; Boston Harbor advocates; and Native American interests. The purpose of the Council is to advise and make recommendations to the Boston Harbor Islands Partnership with respect to the development and implementation of a management plan and the operations of the Boston Harbor Islands national park area.

The meeting is open to the public. Further information concerning Council meetings may be obtained from the Superintendent, Boston Harbor Islands. Interested persons may make oral/written presentations to the Council or file written statements. Such requests should be made at least seven days prior to the meeting to: Superintendent, Boston Harbor Islands NRA, 408 Atlantic Avenue, Boston, MA 02110, telephone (617) 223-8667.

Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve announces a meeting of the Great Sand Dunes National Park Advisory Council, which was established to provide guidance to the Secretary on long-term planning for Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve.

At the February 23 meeting, the National Park Service will solicit ideas from the advisory council about potential dates and formats for upcoming public meetings concerning the General Management Plan, Wilderness Study and EIS; provide an update on the progress of the plan and EIS; and respond to questions about specific provisions of the plan. A public comment period will be held from 11:45 a.m. to 12 p.m.

Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Federal Advisory Commission Act and 36 CFR Part 65 that a meeting of the Landmarks Committee of the National Park System Advisory Board will be held beginning at 1 p.m. on April 11, 2006, at the location listed below. The meeting will continue beginning at 9 a.m. on April 12.

The purpose of this meeting of the Landmarks Committee of the National Park System Advisory Board is to evaluate nominations of historic properties in order to advise the National Park System Advisory Board as to the qualifications of those properties for National Historic Landmark (NHL) designation. If the Landmarks Committee finds that a nominated property meets criteria for designation as an NHL, it will recommend designation to the National Park System Advisory Board at the Board's meeting in June 2006. The Committee also makes recommendations to the National Park System Advisory Board regarding amendments to existing designations and proposals for withdrawal of designation. The members of the National Landmarks Committee are:

The meeting will be open to the public. Pursuant to 36 CFR Part 65, any member of the public may file for consideration by the National Park System Advisory Board and its Landmarks Committee written comments concerning the National Historic Landmarks nominations, amendments to existing designations, or proposals for withdrawal of designation.

Following receipt of a request from the United States Trade Representative (USTR) on January 13, 2006, the Commission instituted investigation No. TA-2104-20, U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement: Potential Economy-wide and Selected Sectoral Effects, under section 2104(f) of the Trade Act of 2002 (19 U.S.C. 3804(f)), for the purpose of assessing the likely impact of the U.S. Trade Promotion Agreement with Peru on the United States economy as a whole and on specific industry sectors and the interests of U.S. consumers.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Project Leaders Nannette Christ, Office of Economics (202-205-3263; nannette.christ@usitc.gov) or Laura Polly, Office of Industries (202-205-3408; laura.polly@usitc.gov). For information on legal aspects, contact William Gearhart of the Office of the General Counsel (202-205-3091; william.gearhart@usitc.gov). The media should contact Margaret O'Laughlin, Office of External Relations (202-205-1819; margaret.olaughlin@usitc.gov).

Background: As requested by the USTR, the Commission will prepare a report as specified in section 2104(f)(2)-(3) of the Trade Act of 2002 assessing the likely impact of the U.S. Trade Promotion Agreement with Peru on the U.S. economy as a whole and on specific industry sectors, including the impact the agreement will have on the gross domestic product, exports and imports, aggregate employment and employment opportunities, the production, employment, and competitive position of industries likely to be significantly affected by the agreement, and the interests of U.S. consumers.

In preparing its assessment, the Commission will review available economic assessments regarding the agreement, including literature concerning any substantially equivalent proposed agreement, and will provide in its assessment a description of the analyses used and conclusions drawn in such literature, and a discussion of areas of consensus and divergence between the various analyses and conclusions, including those of the Commission regarding the agreement.

Section 2104(f)(2) requires that the Commission submit its report to the President and the Congress not later than 90 days after the President enters into the agreement, which he can do 90 days after he notifies the Congress of his intent to do so. On January 6, 2006, the President notified the Congress of his intent to enter into a TPA with Peru. The USTR requested that the Commission provide the report as soon as possible.

Public Hearing: A public hearing in connection with the investigation is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. on March 15, 2006, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC. All persons shall have the right to appear, by counsel or in person, to present information and to be heard. Requests to appear at the public hearing should be filed with the Secretary, United States International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436, no later than 5:15 p.m., February 27, 2006. Any prehearing briefs (original and 14 copies) should be filed no later than 5:15 p.m., March 1, 2006; the deadline for filing posthearing briefs or statements is 5:15 p.m., March 29, 2006. In the event that, as of the close of business on February 27, 2006, no witnesses are scheduled to appear at the hearing, the hearing will be canceled. Any person interested in attending the hearing as an observer or nonparticipant may call the Secretary to the Commission (202-205-2000) after February 27, 2006, for information concerning whether the hearing will be held.

Written Submissions: In lieu of or in addition to participating in the hearing, interested parties are invited to submit written statements concerning the matters to be addressed by the Commission in its report on this investigation. Submissions should be addressed to the Secretary, United States International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW., Washington, DC 20436. To be assured of consideration by the Commission, written statements related to the Commission's report should be submitted to the Commission at the earliest practical date and should be received no later than 5:15 p.m., March 29, 2006. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.8). Section 201.8 of the rules requires that a signed original (or copy designated as an original) and fourteen (14) copies of each document be filed. In the event that confidential treatment of the document is requested, at least four (4) additional copies must be filed, in which the confidential business information must be deleted (see the following paragraph for further information regarding confidential business information). The Commission's rules do not authorize filing submissions with the Secretary by facsimile or electronic means, except to the extent permitted by section 201.8 of the rules (see Handbook for Electronic Filing Procedures, ftp://ftp.usitc.gov/pub/reports/electronic_filing_handbook.pdf). Persons with questions regarding electronic filing should contact the Secretary (202-205-2000 or edis@usitc.gov).

Any submissions that contain confidential business information must also conform with the requirements of section 201.6 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.6). Section 201.6 of the rules requires that the cover of the document and the individual pages be clearly marked as to whether they are the “confidential” or “nonconfidential” version, and that the confidential business information be clearly identified by means of brackets. All written submissions, except for confidential business information, will be made available in the Office of the Secretary to the Commission for inspection by interested parties.

The Commission intends to prepare only a public report in this investigation. The report that the Commission sends to the President and the Congress and makes available to the public will not contain confidential business information. Any confidential business information received by the Commission in this investigation and used in preparing the report will not be published in a manner that would reveal the operations of the firm supplying the information.

The public record for this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) http://edis.usitc.gov. Hearing impaired individuals may obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000.

The Department of Justice hereby gives notice of the availability of exclusive, partially exclusive, on non-exclusive licenses to practice the invention described in U.S. Patent No. 6,525,579, “Pulse Translational Circuits,” issued February 25, 2003. The Federal Government's patent rights to this invention are assigned to the United States of America, as represented by the Attorney General. Any license granted shall comply with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404.

DATES:

Applications for a license may be submitted at any time from the date of this notice.

The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed information collection is published to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. This proposed information collection was previously published in the Federal Register Volume 70, Number 181, page 55166 on September 20, 2005, allowing for a 60 day comment period.

The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment until March 13, 2006. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10.

Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the items contained in this notice, especially the estimated public burden and associated response time, should be directed to The Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention Department of Justice Desk Officer, Washington, DC 20503. Additionally, comments may be submitted to OMB via facsimile to (202) 395-5806.

Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Overview of this Information Collection

(1) Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved collection.

(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Request for Information Regarding Federal Firearms Dealer's Records (Records of Acquisition and Disposition).

(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Justice sponsoring the collection: Form Number: ATF F 5300.3A. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Business or other for-profit. Other: None. Abstract: Firearms licensees are required to keep records of acquisition and disposition. These records remain with the licensee as long as he is in business. When a firearms or ammunition business is discontinued and succeeded by a new licensee, the records required to be kept shall appropriately reflect such facts and shall be delivered to the successor. When discontinuance of the business is absolute, such records shall be delivered within thirty days after the business discontinuance to ATF.

(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: There will be an estimated 28,000 respondents, who will complete the form within approximately 5 minutes.

(6) An estimate of the total burden (in hours) associated with the collection: There are an estimated 2,380 total burden hours associated with this collection.

The Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Council) is announcing the March 3, 2006, meeting of the Council.

DATES:

Friday, March 3, 2006, 9:15 a.m.—12:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES:

The meeting will take place at the White House Conference Center, 726 Jackson Place, NW., Washington, DC 20006 in Truman Room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robin Delany-Shabazz, Designated Federal Official, by telephone at 202-307-9963, or by e-mail at Robin.Delany-Shabazz@usdoj.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, established pursuant to section 3(2)A of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2) will meet to carry out its advisory functions under section 206 of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 2002, 42 U.S.C. 5601, et seq.

Documents such as meeting announcements, agendas, minutes, and interim and final reports will be available on the Council's Web page at http://www.JuvenileCouncil.gov. (You may also verify the status of the meeting at that Web address.)

Although designated agency representatives may attend, the Council membership is composed of the Attorney General (Chair), the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Education, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, the Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Vice Chair), the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation for National and Community Service, and the Assistant Secretary for Homeland Security, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. Nine additional members are appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Senate Majority Leader, and the President of the United States.

Meeting Agenda

The agenda for this meeting will include: (a) A review of the past meeting and written public comments; (b) remarks from John Walters (invited), Director, Office on National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), John Horton, Associate Deputy Director, ONDCP, and other ONDCP staff, and a discussion of opportunities to coordinate federal work concerned with juveniles and drug policy issues; (c) a review and debriefing of the January 2006 National Conference, “Building on Success: Providing Today's Youth With Opportunities for a Better Tomorrow” and other Council activities; and (d) other business and announcements.

For security purposes, members of the public who wish to attend the meeting must pre-register by calling the Juvenile Justice Resource Center at 301-519-6473 (Daryel Dunston), no later than Monday, February 27, 2006 [Note: these are not toll-free telephone numbers.] Additional identification documents may be required. To register online, please go to http://www.JuvenileCouncil.gov/meetings.html. Space is limited.

Note:

Photo identification will be required for admission to the meeting.

Written Comments

Interested parties may submit written comments by Monday, February 27, 2006, to Robin Delany-Shabazz, Designated Federal Official for the Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, at Robin.Delany-Shabazz@usdoj.gov. The Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention expects that the public statements presented will not repeat previously submitted statements. Written questions and comments from the public may be invited at this meeting.

The Department of Labor (DOL) has submitted the following public information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting Darrin King on 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or e-mail: king.darrin@dol.gov.

Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, 202-395-7316 (this is not a toll-free number), within 30 days from the date of this publication in the Federal Register.

The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:

• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Description: Section 404(c) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) (29 U.S.C. 1104(c)) provides that, if an individual account pension plan permits a participant or beneficiary to exercise control over assets in his or her account and the participant or beneficiary in fact exercises such control (as determined under regulations of the Department of Labor), the participant or beneficiary shall not be deemed to be a fiduciary by such exercise of control and no person otherwise a fiduciary to the plan shall be liable for any loss or breach that results solely from this exercise of control.

The Department of Labor's regulation under section 404(c), codified at 29 CFR 2550.404c-1, describes the circumstances in which a participant or beneficiary in an individual account plan is considered to have exercised control over the assets in his or her individual account so as to relieve a fiduciary to the plan of liability relating to the exercise of control. The regulation specifies the manner in which an individual account pension plan must operate in allowing participants or beneficiaries to allocate individual account assets among available investment alternatives, such that section 404(c) will limit the plan fiduciary's liability for the investment decision. The regulation provides, among other things, that participants and beneficiaries must have adequate information on which to base investment decisions. The regulation specifies the information that a plan must make available before a participant first makes investment decisions; when that information changes, for example when the available investment options under the plan change; and also upon the participant's and beneficiary's request. These information collection provisions are necessary to ensure that participants and beneficiaries are adequately informed about investment alternatives available under the plan, their rights, and the consequences of their investment decisions. Such information is important in assisting participants and beneficiaries in understanding their investment risks and achieving their retirement savings goals.

The Department of Labor (DOL) has submitted the following public information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting Darrin King on 202-693-4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or e-mail: king.darrin@dol.gov.

Comments should be sent to Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the Employment Standards Administration (ESA), Office of Management and Budget, Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503, 202-395-7316 (this is not a toll-free number), within 30 days from the date of this publication in the Federal Register.

The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:

• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

Petitions have been filed with the Secretary of Labor under Section 221 (a) of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) and are identified in the Appendix to this notice. Upon receipt of these petitions, the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, has instituted investigations pursuant to Section 221(a) of the Act.

The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. The investigations will further relate, as appropriate, to the determination of the date on which total or partial separations began or threatened to begin and the subdivision of the firm involved.

The petitioners or any other persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing, provided such request is filed in writing with the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than February 21, 2006.

Interested persons are invited to submit written comments regarding the subject matter of the investigations to the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, not later than February 21, 2006.

The petitions filed in this case are available for inspection at the Office of the Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance, Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room C-5311, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.

Signed at Washington, DC this 31st day of January 2006. Erica R. Cantor, Director, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. Appendix [TAA petitions instituted between 1/16/06 and 1/20/06] TA-W Subject firm

By letter dated November 22, 2005, a company official requested administrative reconsideration regarding Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) applicable to workers of the subject firm. The negative determination was signed on September 14, 2005, and soon will be published in the Federal Register.

The initial ATAA investigation determined that the skills of the subject worker group are easily transferable to other positions in the local area.

In the request for reconsideration, the company official provided new information confirming that the skills of the workers at the subject firm are not easily transferable in the local commuting area.

Additional investigation has determined that the workers possess skills that are not easily transferable. A significant number or proportion of the worker group are age fifty years or over. Competitive conditions within the industry are adverse.

Conclusion

After careful review of the additional facts obtained on reconsideration, I conclude that the requirements of Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, have been met for workers at the subject firm.

In accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make the following certification:

All workers of Cequent Electrical Products, Breakaway Switches Product Line, Albion, Indiana (TA-W-57,567A) and all workers of Cequent Electrical Products, Cable Connectors Product Line, Albion, Indiana (TA-W-57,567B), who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after July 15, 2004 through September 14, 2007, are eligible to apply for trade adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.

In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance on December 9, 2003, applicable to workers of Hunt Corporation, Speedball Road Plant, Statesville, North Carolina. The notice was published in the Federal Register on January 16, 2004 (69 FR 2623).

At the request of a petitioner, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers were engaged in the production of office and school supplies.

New information provided by the company shows that Hunt Corporation, Speedball Road Plant, became known as Elmer's Products, Inc., Speedball Road Plant following a merger in late 2004. Workers separated from employment at the subject firm had their wages reported under a separate unemployment insurance (UI) tax accounts for Elmer's Products, Inc., Speedball Road Plant.

Accordingly, the Department is amending this certification to properly reflect this matter.

The intent of the Department's certification is to include all workers of Hunt Corporation, Speedball Road Plant, now known as Elmer's Products, Inc., Speedball Road Plant who was adversely affected by increased company imports.

The amended notice applicable to TA-W-53,505 is hereby issued as follows:

All workers of Hunt Corporation, Speedball Road Plant, now known as Elmer's Products, Inc., Speedball Road Plant, Statesville, North Carolina, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after November 7, 2002 through December 9, 2005, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974. Signed at Washington, DC this 3rd day of February 2006. Elliott S. Kushner, Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance. [FR Doc. E6-1909 Filed 2-9-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-30-P DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Employment and Training Administration [TA-W-58,279; TA-W-58,279A] Jones Apparel Group, Inc., AM-1 Room, Bristol, Pennsylvania; Jones Apparel Group, Inc., Bristol Distribution Center, Bristol, Pennsylvania; Dismissal of Application for Reconsideration

Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an application for administrative reconsideration was filed with the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance for workers at Jones Apparel Group, Inc., AM-1 Room, Bristol, Pennsylvania and Jones Apparel Group, Inc., Bristol Distribution Center, Bristol, Pennsylvania. The application did not contain new information supporting a conclusion that the determination was erroneous, and also did not provide a justification for reconsideration of the determination that was based on either mistaken facts or a misinterpretation of facts or of the law. Therefore, dismissal of the application was issued.

Pursuant to 29 CFR 90.18(C) an application for administrative reconsideration was filed with the Director of the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance for workers at Premier Quilting Corporation, Oxford, North Carolina. The application did not contain new information supporting a conclusion that the determination was erroneous, and also did not provide a justification for reconsideration of the determination that was based on either mistaken facts or a misinterpretation of facts or of the law. Therefore, dismissal of the application was issued.

By application of January 10, 2006, a petitioner requested administrative reconsideration of the Department of Labor's Notice of Negative Determination Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance, applicable to workers of the subject firm. The Department's negative determination was issued on December 27, 2005. The Notice of determination published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2006 (71 FR 2568).

The request for reconsideration alleged that the subject worker group supports production at an affiliated facility and that production is shifting from that facility to a foreign facility. Rawlings Sporting Goods Co., Inc., Licking, Missouri was previously certified for Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) under TA-W-50,065 (issued December 16, 2002). The petitioners also allege that those circumstances which supported the previous certification still exist and infer that they should be used to support certification in the immediate petition.

The Department carefully reviewed the petitioner's request for reconsideration and has determined that the Department will conduct further investigation based on new information provided by the petitioner and the company official.

Conclusion

After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, granted.

In accordance with section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, (19 U.S.C. 2273), the Department of Labor herein presents summaries of determinations regarding eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance for workers (TA-W) number and alternative trade adjustment assistance (ATAA) by (TA-W) number issued during the periods of January 2006.

In order for an affirmative determination to be made and a certification of eligibility to apply for directly-impacted (primary) worker adjustment assistance to be issued, each of the group eligibility requirements of section 222(a) of the Act must be met.

I. Section (a)(2)(A) all of the following must be satisfied:

A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;

B. The sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely; and

C. Increased imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such firm or subdivision have contributed importantly to such workers' separation or threat of separation and to the decline in sales or production of such firm or subdivision; or

II. Section (a)(2)(B) both of the following must be satisfied:

A. A significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firm, or an appropriate subdivision of the firm, have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;

B. There has been a shift in production by such workers' firm or subdivision to a foreign county of articles like or directly competitive with articles which are produced by such firm or subdivision; and

C. One of the following must be satisfied:

1. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles is a party to a free trade agreement with the United States;

2. The country to which the workers' firm has shifted production of the articles to a beneficiary country under the Andean Trade Preference Act, African Growth and Opportunity Act, or the Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act; or

3. There has been or is likely to be an increase in imports of articles that are like or directly competitive with articles which are or were produced by such firm or subdivision.

Also, in order for an affirmative determination to be made and a certification of eligibility to apply for worker adjustment assistance as an adversely affected secondary group to be issued, each of the group eligibility requirements of section 222(b) of the Act must be met.

(1) Significant number or proportion of the workers in the workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated;

(2) The workers' firm (or subdivision) is a supplier or downstream producer to a firm (or subdivision) that employed a group of workers who received a certification of eligibility to apply for trade adjustment assistance benefits and such supply or production is related to the article that was the basis for such certification; and

(3) Either—

(A) The workers' firm is a supplier and the component parts it supplied for the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph (2) accounted for at least 20 percent of the production or sales of the workers' firm; or

(B) A loss or business by the workers' firm with the firm (or subdivision) described in paragraph (2) contributed importantly to the workers' separation or threat of separation.

Affirmative Determinations for Worker Adjustment Assistance

The following certifications have been issued; the date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determination.

The following certifications have been issued. The requirements of (a)(2)(A) (increased imports) of Section 222 have been met.

In order for the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance to issued a certification of eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) for older workers, the group eligibility requirements of section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act must be met.

The following certifications have been issued; the date following the company name and location of each determination references the impact date for all workers of such determinations.

In the following cases, it has been determined that the requirements of section 246(a)(3)(ii) have been met.

I. Whether a significant number of workers in the workers' firm are 50 years of age or older.

II. Whether the workers in the workers' firm possess skills that are not easily transferable.

III. The competitive conditions within the workers' industry (i.e., conditions within the industry are adverse).

In order for the Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance to issue a certification of eligibility to apply for Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance (ATAA) for older workers, the group eligibility requirements of Section 246(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Trade Act must be met.

In the following cases, it has been determined that the requirements of section 246(a)(3)(ii) have not been met for the reasons specified.

Since the workers are denied eligibility to apply for TAA, the workers cannot be certified eligible for ATAA.

The Department has determined that criterion (3) of Section 246 has not been met. Competition conditions within the workers' industry are not adverse.

None.

I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the month of January 2006. Copies of these determinations are available for inspection in Room C-5311, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210 during normal business hours or will be mailed to persons who write to the above address.

Reason for Closing: The work being reviewed may include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information: financial data, such as salaries and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552 b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) has issued Section 17.5, Draft Revision 0, “Quality Assurance Program Description—Design Certification, Early Site Permit and New License Applicants,” of NUREG-0800, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants, LWR Edition” for public comment.

DATES:

Comments on this draft document must be submitted by April 11, 2006. To ensure efficient and complete comment resolution, comments should include references to the section, page, and line numbers of the document to which the comment applies.

ADDRESSES:

NUREG-0800, including Section 17.5, Draft Revision 0, is available for inspection and copying for a fee at the Commission's Public Document Room, NRC's Headquarters Building, 11555 Rockville Pike (First Floor), Rockville, Maryland. The Public Document Room is open from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays. NUREG-0800, including Section 17.5, Draft Revision 0, is also available electronically on the NRC Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0800/, and from the ADAMS Electronic Reading Room on the NRC Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (ADAMS Accession No. ML060180622).

Members of the public are invited and encouraged to submit written comments. Comments may be accompanied by additional relevant information or supporting data. A number of methods may be used to submit comments. Written comments should be mailed to Chief, Rules Review and Directives Branch, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T6-D59, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Hand-deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., Federal workdays. Comments may be submitted electronically to: nrcrep@nrc.gov. Comments also may be submitted electronically through the comment form available on the NRC Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr0800/.

This new Standard Review Plan (SRP) section is guidance to the staff reviewers in the Office of NRR for performing safety reviews of quality assurance (QA) programs for design certification, early site permit (ESP) and combined license applications submitted under 10 CFR Part 52, as well as new construction permit and operating license applications submitted under 10 CFR Part 50. The principal purpose of the SRP is to ensure the quality and uniformity of staff safety reviews. It is also the intent of this plan to make information about regulatory matters widely available and to improve communication between the NRC, interested members of the public, and the nuclear power industry, thereby increasing understanding of the review process.

SRP Section 17.5 is based on a combination of the following NRC endorsed guidance: ASME Standard NQA-1, “Quality Assurance Program for Nuclear Facilities” (1994 Edition); Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.8, “Qualification and Training of Personnel for Nuclear Power Plants,” Revision 3; RG 1.28, “Quality Assurance Program Requirements (Design and Construction),” Revision 3; RG 1.33, “Quality Assurance Program Requirements (Operation),” Revision 2; Review Standard 002, “Processing Applications for Early Site Permits,” Revision 0; Nuclear Information and Records Management Association, Inc. (NIRMA) Technical Guide (TG) 11-1998, “Authentication of Records and Media;” NIRMA TG 15-1998, “Management of Electronic Records;” NIRMA TG 16-1998, “Software Configuration Management and Quality Assurance;” NIRMA TG 21-1998, Electronic Records Protection and Restoration;” Electric Power Research Institute NP-5652, “Guideline for the Utilization of Commercial—Grade Items in Nuclear Safety-Related Applications (NCIG-07);” SRP Section 17.1, “Quality Assurance During the Design and Construction Phases,” Draft Revision 3; SRP Section 17.2, “Quality Assurance During the Operations Phase,” Draft Revision 3; and SRP Section 17.3, “Quality Assurance Program,” Draft Revision 1. The provisions in 10 CFR 50.69, “Risk-Informed Categorization of Structures, Systems and Components of Nuclear Power Reactors,” regarding QA controls for nonsafety-related systems, structures, and components that perform safety significant functions are included in SRP Section 17.5. The provisions in 10 CFR Part 21 and 10 CFR 50.55(e) regarding reporting of defects and noncompliance are included in SRP Section 17.5. A number of NRC approved changes to QA programs that were originally based on existing SRP Sections 17.1, 17.2, and 17.3 that are considered by the NRC to be generic in nature are also included in SRP Section 17.5. The independent review criteria in existing SRP Section 13.4, “Operational Review,” have been relocated to SRP Section 17.5.

SRP Section 17.5 is to be used by the staff for guidance for the review of new QA programs. SRP Section 17.5 does not replace existing SRP Sections 13.4, 17.1, 17.2 and 17.3. These existing SRPs continue to be applicable to QA programs as previously approved by the NRC.

Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for extension and approval.

• (Rule 15g-6—Account statements for penny stock customers.

Rule 15g-6 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 requires brokers and dealers that sell penny stocks to their customers to provide monthly account statements containing information with regard to the penny stocks held in customer accounts. The information is required to be provided to customers of broker-dealers that effect penny stock transactions in order to provide those customers with information that is not now publicly available. Without this information, investors would be less able to protect themselves from fraud and to make informed investment decisions.

The staff estimates that there are approximately 240 broker-dealers that are subject to the rule. The staff estimates that the firms affected by the rule will, at any one time, have approximately 150 new customers with whom they have effected transactions in penny stocks, each of whom would receive a maximum of 12 account statements per year, for a total of 1,800 account statements annually for each firm (150 customers × 12 account statements/customer). The staff estimates that a broker-dealer would expend approximately three minutes in processing the information required for each account statement. Accordingly, the estimated average annual burden would equal 90 hours (1,800 account statements × 3 minutes/account statement ÷ 1 hour/60 minutes), and the estimated average total burden would equal 21,600 hours (90 hours × 240).

Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.

Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (“PRA”), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collections of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit these existing collections of information to the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) for extension and approval.

• Form N-SAR—Semi-Annual Report for Registered Investment Companies

Form N-SAR is the form used by all registered investment companies with the exception of face amount certificate companies, to comply with the periodic filing and disclosure requirements imposed by Section 30 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 [15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.], and of rules 30a1-1 and 30b1-1 under the Act. The information required to be filed with the Commission assures the public availability of the information and permits verification of compliance with Investment Company Act requirements. Registered unit investment trusts are required to provide this information on an annual report filed with the Commission on Form N-SAR (OMB Control No. 3235-0330) pursuant to rule 30a1-1 under the Investment Company Act [17 CFR 30a1-1], and registered management investment companies must submit the required information on a semi-annual report on Form N-SAR pursuant to rule 30b1-1 under the Act [17 CFR 270.30b1-1].1

The Commission estimates that the total number of respondents is 4,130 and the total annual number of responses is 7,430 ((3,300 respondents X 2 responses per year) + (830 respondents X 1 response per year)). The Commission estimates that each registrant filing a report on Form N-SAR would spend, on average, 14.43 hours in preparing and filing the Form and that the total hour burden for all Form N-SAR filings would be 107,203 hours. Estimates of the burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the PRA, and are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms.

Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.

Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for extension and approval.

Options Disclosure Document

Rule 9b-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (17 CFR 240.9b-1) sets forth the categories of information required to be disclosed in an options disclosure document (“ODD”) and requires the options markets to file an ODD with the Commission 60 days prior to the date it is distributed to investors. In addition, Rule 9b-1 provides that the ODD must be amended if the information in the document becomes materially inaccurate or incomplete and that amendments must be filed with the Commission 30 days prior to the distribution to customers. Finally, Rule 9b-1 requires a broker-dealer to furnish to each customer an ODD and any amendments, prior to accepting an order to purchase or sell an option on behalf of that customer.

There are 6 options markets that must comply with Rule 9b-1. These 6 respondents work together to prepare a single ODD covering options traded on each market, as well as amendments to the ODD. These respondents file no more than one amendment per year, which requires approximately 8 hours per year for each respondent. Thus, the total compliance burden for options markets per year is 48 hours. The approximate cost per hour is $100, resulting in a total cost of compliance for these respondents of $4,800 per year (48 hours @ $100).

In addition, approximately 2,000 broker-dealers must comply with Rule 9b-1. Each of these respondents will process an average of three new customers for options each week and, therefore, will have to furnish approximately 156 ODDs per year. The postal mailing or electronic delivery of the ODD takes respondents no more than 30 seconds to complete for an annual compliance burden for each of these respondents of 78 minutes, or 1.3 hours. Thus, the total compliance burden per year is 2,600 hours (2,000 broker-dealers × 1.3 hours). The approximate cost per hour to these respondents is $10 per hour, resulting in a total cost of compliance for these respondents of $26,000 per year (2,600 hours @ $10).

The total compliance burden for all respondents under this rule (both options markets and broker-dealers) is 2648 hours per year (48 + 2,600), and total compliance costs of $30,800 ($4,800 + $26,000).

Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.

On January 19, 2006, Community Capital Corporation, a South Carolina corporation (“Issuer”), filed an application with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 12d2-2(d) thereunder,2 to withdraw its common stock, $1.00 par value (“Security”), from listing and registration on the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex”).

1 15 U.S.C. 78l(d).

2 17 CFR 240.12d2-2(d).

On January 18, 2006, the Board of Directors (“Board”) of the Issuer unanimously approved resolutions to withdraw the Security from listing and registration on Amex and to list the Security on the Nasdaq National Market (“Nasdaq”). The Issuer stated that the following reasons factored into the Board's decision: (i) The Board believes that listing the Security on Nasdaq will provide visibility for the Security, improve liquidity in the Security, and provide better execution quality for investors; and (ii) the Board believes that more of the Issuer's peer financial institutions are listed on Nasdaq than listed on Amex.

The Issuer stated in its application that it has met the requirements of Amex Rule 18 by complying with all applicable laws in effect in the State of South Carolina, in which it is incorporated, and provided written notice of withdrawal to Amex.

The Issuer's application relates solely to withdrawal of the Security from listing on Amex and from registration under section 12(b) of the Act,3 and shall not affect its obligation to be registered under section 12(g) of the Act.4

3 15 U.S.C. 78l(b).

4 15 U.S.C. 78l(g).

Any interested person may, on or before February 28, 2006, comment on the facts bearing upon whether the application has been made in accordance with the rules of Amex, and what terms, if any, should be imposed by the Commission for the protection of investors. All comment letters may be submitted by either of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/delist.shtml); or

• Send an e-mail to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include the File Number 1-18460 or;

All submissions should refer to File Number 1-18460. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/delist.shtml). Comments are also available for public inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. All comments received will be posted without change; we do not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.

The Commission, based on the information submitted to it, will issue an order granting the application after the date mentioned above, unless the Commission determines to order a hearing on the matter.

For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.5

On December 23, 2005, Eli Lilly and Company, an Indiana corporation (“Issuer”), filed an application with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 12d2-2(d) thereunder,2 to withdraw its common stock, no par value (“Security”), from listing and registration on the Pacific Exchange, Inc. (“PCX”).

1 15 U.S.C. 78l(d).

2 17 CFR 240.12d2-2(d).

On June 24, 2005, the Board of Directors (“Board”) of the Issuer adopted resolutions to withdraw the Security from listing and registration on PCX. The Issuer stated that it determined to withdraw the Security from PCX for the followings reasons: (i) The Issuer maintains its primary listing on the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (“NYSE”) as well as its secondary listings on the London Stock Exchange and the SWX Swiss Stock Exchange; (ii) the Security is widely traded on several electronic exchanges; (iii) in light of the strong liquidity and visibility of the trading market for the Security on NYSE and other exchanges, the additional expenses and administrative burden of maintaining a secondary listing on PCX outweigh the benefits of maintaining the listing on PCX.

The Issuer stated in its application that it has complied with applicable rules of PCX by providing PCX with the required documents governing the withdrawal of securities from listing and registration on PCX. The Issuer's application relates solely to the withdrawal of the Security from listing on PCX, and shall not affect its continued listing on NYSE or its obligation to be registered under section 12(b) of the Act.3

3 15 U.S.C. 78l(b).

Any interested person may, on or before February 28, 2006, comment on the facts bearing upon whether the application has been made in accordance with the rules of PCX, and what terms, if any, should be imposed by the Commission for the protection of investors. All comment letters may be submitted by either of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/delist.shtml); or

• Send an e-mail to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include the File Number 1-06351 or;

All submissions should refer to File Number 1-06351. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help us process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/delist.shtml). Comments are also available for public inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. All comments received will be posted without change; we do not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.

The Commission, based on the information submitted to it, will issue an order granting the application after the date mentioned above, unless the Commission determines to order a hearing on the matter.

For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.4

On July 28, 2005, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (the “Board” or the “PCAOB”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) proposed Auditing Standard No. 4, Reporting on Whether a Previously Reported Material Weakness Continues to Exist, pursuant to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (the “Act”) 1 and Section 19(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).2 Auditing Standard No. 4 establishes requirements that apply when an auditor is engaged to report on whether a previously reported material weakness in internal control over financial reporting continues to exist.3 Also, in connection with proposed Auditing Standard No. 4, the Board adopted a proposed conforming amendment to AT sec. 101, which encompasses agreed-upon procedures engagements in which an auditor reports findings based on specific procedures performed on a subject matter. AT sec. 101, Attest Engagements, is one of the interim attestation standards adopted by the PCAOB in April 2003.4 Notice of proposed Auditing Standard No. 4 and proposed amendment to AT sec. 101 (collectively referred to as the “Proposed Standard”) was published in the Federal Register on December 30, 2005,5 and the Commission received six comment letters. For the reasons discussed below, the Commission is granting approval of the Proposed Standard.

1 15 U.S.C. 7202 et seq.

2 15 U.S.C. 78s(b).

3A previously reported material weakness, in the context of the proposed auditing standard, means a material weakness that was described previously in an auditor's report issued pursuant to PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 2, An Audit of Internal Control Over Financial Reporting Performed in Conjunction with an Audit of Financial Statements.

4 The Commission approved the PCAOB's adoption of the interim standards in Release No. 34-47745, Order Regarding Section 103(a)(3)(B) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (April 25, 2003).

5 Release No. 34-52990 (December 21, 2005) [70 FR 77602].

II. Description

The Act establishes the PCAOB to oversee the audits of public companies and related matters, to protect investors, and to further the public interest in the preparation of informative, accurate and independent audit reports.6 Section 103(a) of the Act directs the PCAOB to establish auditing and related attestation standards, quality control standards, and ethics standards to be used by registered public accounting firms in the preparation and issuance of audit reports as required by the Act or the rules of the Commission.

6 Section 101(a) of the Act.

The Proposed Standard is applicable to engagements tailored solely to report on whether a previously reported material weakness continues to exist. Such an engagement is voluntary in nature at the election of management, and may be performed as of any reasonable date selected by management. The auditor may report on the remediation of one or more material weaknesses as part of a single engagement, and the engagement need not be performed in conjunction with an audit or review of the company's financial statements. In order to perform such an engagement, the auditor must receive a written report from management that contains several elements, including a statement from management that the identified material weakness no longer exists as of the date specified by management. If the auditor determines that the material weakness continues to exist, the company may re-address remediation efforts and re-engage the auditor to opine on whether the material weakness continues to exist. The Proposed Standard also includes illustrative auditor's reports (Appendix A) and additional guidance (Appendix B—“Background and Basis for Conclusions”).

The Proposed Standard states that, if approved by the Commission, it would be effective as of the date of Commission approval.

III. Discussion

The Commission's comment period on the Proposed Standard ended on January 20, 2006, and the Commission received six comment letters. The comment letters came from four registered public accounting firms and two professional associations.

None of the comment letters received were from issuers or investors. In general, the respondents expressed support for the Proposed Standard.

As part of their comment letters, two accounting firms and a professional organization representing the internal audit profession requested guidance on questions regarding the acceptable forms for use in filing management's report and the auditor's report. In response to these questions, the following is noted:

• Since the Commission's rules do not specifically address the filing of such voluntary information, if an issuer wishes to publicly disseminate the reports of management and the auditor on whether a previously reported material weakness continues to exist, an issuer can use any Exchange Act form it believes is appropriate.

• Our rules do not specify the form of disclosure that management should use when describing the circumstances surrounding the remediation of a previously reported material weakness, and our general disclosure principle and requirements would apply. However, the disclosure should not amend management's conclusion on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of the end of the fiscal year (performed pursuant to the Commission's rules implementing Section 404 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002).7 Further, management can only conclude that internal control over financial reporting is effective if as of the time of remediation of a material weakness (or as of any other time) an assessment of effectiveness pursuant to those rules is performed as of that time.

• If the remediation was completed between the end of the fiscal year and the filing of the Form 10-K, management may include a single, combined report on the results of the annual assessment of internal control over financial reporting and the subsequent conclusion related to the remediation of a material weakness identified in the annual assessment.

IV. Conclusion

The Commission believes that the proposed rules provide a reasonable format for assessing whether a material weakness in a company's internal controls that has been, or is being, reported to investors continues to exist. However, to facilitate implementation of the standard, the Commission expects the PCAOB, within 90 days of the issuance of this order, to issue a clear and concise outline of the affirmative audit steps set forth in the standard.

On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that proposed Auditing Standard No. 4 and the proposed amendment to AT sec. 101 are consistent with the requirements of the Act and the securities laws and are necessary and appropriate in the public interest and for the protection of investors.

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 107 of the Act and Section 19(b)(2) of the Exchange Act, that proposed Auditing Standard No. 4, Reporting on Whether a Previously Reported Material Weakness Continues to Exist and a proposed Conforming Amendment to Interim Attestation Standard—AT sec. 101, Attest Engagements (File No. PCAOB-2005-01) be and hereby is approved.

Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on September 30, 2005, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Amex. On January 13, 2006, the Amex filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.3 On January 26, 2006, the Amex filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change.4 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons.

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

3 Amendment No. 1, which replaced and superseded the original filing in its entirety, is incorporated in this notice.

4 Amendment No. 2, which made clarifying changes to the Purpose section, as well as changes to the proposed rule text, is incorporated in this notice.

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

The Exchange proposes to adopt new Rule 994—ANTE and to amend existing Rules 900—ANTE, 918—ANTE, 935—ANTE, 936—ANTE, 936C—ANTE, 950—ANTE, 951—ANTE, 958—ANTE and 958A—ANTE to authorize a new category of Registered Options Traders (“ROTs”) called a Remote Registered Options Trader (“RROT”).

The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Amex's Web site at http://www.amex.com, at the Amex's principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

In its filing with the Commission, the Amex included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Amex has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

The Exchange proposes to create a new category of ROTs called an RROT. An RROT is a ROT which would be a member or member organization so designated by the Exchange which would be awarded remote quoting rights to enter bids and offers electronically from locations other than the trading crowd where the applicable options class is traded on the Exchange's physical trading floor.

The Exchange's proposal introduces the concept of awarding remote quoting rights to specialists and ROTs based on quantitative criteria. Specialists would be awarded remote quoting rights based on Exchange floor volume executed and their percentage of the average market share of industry volume in the options in which they specialize per quarter. ROTs would be awarded remote quoting rights based solely on floor volume executed. The Exchange believes that the award of remote quoting rights will serve to foster competition and award specialists and ROTs for their performance in the option classes in which they trade.

Furthermore, the proposed RROT program combines the electronic and open outcry trading models. Currently, the Exchange permits ROTs to submit quotes only from the physical trading floor. In this regard, the Exchange anticipates that offering the ability to enter offers and bids electronically away from the location where the options class is traded on the Exchange's physical trading floor will increase the liquidity available in those classes to which the RROT is assigned, as well as enhance the overall competitiveness of the Exchange.5

5See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 53161 (January 20, 2006), 71 FR 4388 (January 26, 2006) (File No. SR-Amex-2005-75), regarding the Exchange's proposed Supplemental Registered Options Trader (“SROT”) program. An SROT is defined as a ROT that is a member organization so designated by the Exchange that would be granted remote quoting rights to enter bids and offers electronically from off the Exchange's physical trading floor. The SROT program proposes similar amendments proposed to be made to the Exchange Rules herein. Assuming that the SROT proposal receives Commission approval at an earlier date, the Exchange anticipates incorporating the changes proposed in the SROT filing into this filing at that time.

Exchange Rules applicable to ROTs would not apply to RROTs unless otherwise specified. The proposed rules and amendments to current rules discussed below would address the definition, approval process, quoting rights and obligations of RROTs.

Remote Registered Options Traders Program

i. Application for Designation as an RROT. Proposed Rule 994—ANTE (a) sets forth an RROT's application and termination procedures. Under the Exchange's proposal, an RROT is defined as a ROT that is a member or member organization that would be granted remote quoting rights to enter bids and offers electronically from locations other than the trading crowd, both on and off the Exchange's trading floor, where the applicable options class is traded.

A member or member organization requesting approval to be designated as an RROT is required to file a written application with the Exchange, pursuant to Exchange Rules, indicating that it is qualified as a ROT. Under the proposal, an RROT applicant that seeks to withdraw as such must notify the Exchange at least three business days prior to the desired effective date of such withdrawal. The Exchange may suspend or terminate any assignment of an RROT in one or more classes whenever, in the Exchange's judgment, the interests of a fair and orderly market are best served by such action. An RROT may seek review of the suspension or termination of its designation pursuant to Article IV, Section 1(g) of the Constitution and Rule 40.

The pool of quoting rights awarded by volume would be established quarterly by a Committee designated by the Board of Governors of the Exchange that would include a representative from the Options Market Maker Association and a representative from the Options Specialist Association (the “Committee”). The Committee would announce the pool of available quoting rights available to be earned by percentage of Amex floor volume, for the subsequent trading period, not later than the first business day of each calendar quarter. The membership would be informed of the amount of quoting rights earned no later than one week prior to the commencement of the subsequent trading period.

By way of example, in a given quarter, the Committee may set the total number of quoting rights to be awarded by the percentage of Amex floor volume at 1,000 quoting rights. Assuming the Exchange's total floor volume for a given quarter amounts to 20 million contracts, a member or member organization which has traded 2 million contracts that quarter has traded 10% of the total Amex floor volume. A member or member organization which has traded 10% of the total Amex floor volume would earn 10% of the available quoting rights, or 100 quoting rights. A member or member organization which has traded 1 million contracts in that same quarter has traded 5% of the Amex floor volume and would earn 5% of the available quoting rights, or 50 quoting rights.

b. Remote Quoting Rights Earned by Market Share. Specialists may also earn remote quoting rights based on their percentage of the average market share of the industry volume in the option classes in which they specialize per quarter. The award of remote quoting rights to specialists would be based upon their market share in the top 100 option classes by industry volume, top 101-300 option classes by industry volume, and remaining option classes as follows:

A specialist's quarterly market share may not be predetermined. As such, unlike the quoting rights available to be earned by the percentage of the total Amex floor volume, remote quoting rights based on market share would not be preset. The Exchange anticipates that such incentive-based quoting rights will promote competition and encourage specialists to gain an increased market share in the options classes in which they trade.

Pursuant to the table above, if a particular specialist firm has earned 14% of the market share in a given option class which is in the top 100 option classes by industry volume, this firm would earn .05 quoting rights for that class. A specialist firm that has earned 25% of the market share in a given option class which is ranked 250 would earn 1.5 quoting rights for that class. A specialist firm that has earned 17% of the market share in a given option class which is ranked 350 would earn .25 quoting rights for that class. This analysis is conducted for every class traded by that specialist. Quoting Rights are totaled and rounded to the nearest whole right.

The Exchange proposes that an RROT would be assigned classes pursuant to existing Commentary .05 to Rule 958—ANTE. Each remote quoting right would permit an RROT to remotely quote one option class, and no fractional remote quoting rights would be issued. Furthermore, RROTs may make adjustments to the option classes in which they will remotely quote in the form and manner set forth in Commentary .05 to Rule 958—ANTE.

c. Notification of Quoting Rights Earned. As noted above, the pool of quoting rights earned by the percentage of Amex floor volume would be defined quarterly by the Committee. The Committee would announce the pool of quoting rights available to be earned by percentage of Amex floor volume, for the subsequent trading period, no later than the first business day of each calendar quarter.

The Committee would notify eligible members and member organizations of the quoting rights they have earned, based on both volume and market share, no later than the tenth business day of each calendar quarter. Although the determinations regarding quoting rights would occur quarterly, the time frame during which the quoting rights may be used would be the subsequent three calendar months.6

6 First quarter data regarding percentage of Amex floor volume and industry market share earned per options class would be used to determine the quoting rights awarded for May, June and July. Second quarter data would be used to determine quoting rights for August, September and October. Third quarter data would be used to determine the quoting rights for November, December and January. Four quarter data would be used to determine the quoting rights for February, March and April.

The Exchange further proposes that remote quoting rights would be transferable. The transfer of remote quoting rights would be private transactions between the members and member organizations. Members and member organizations would be required to notify the Exchange of the transfer of any rights.

iii. RROT Obligations. Under the Exchange's proposal, RROTs must have at least one active floor member acting as a ROT, subject to limitations set forth in the “Affiliation Limitations” section of proposed Rule 994—ANTE, and may remotely quote in up to five (5) option classes per seat owned or leased without any additional seat requirements. RROTs will be required to purchase or lease one additional seat for every forty (40) option classes remotely quoted in excess of the five option classes permitted pursuant to 994—ANTE (c)(i)(a). For example, a member firm with two (2) seats may quote in up to ten (10) option classes, without any additional seat requirements. Likewise, a member firm with twenty (20) seats may quote in up to one-hundred (100) option classes without any additional seat requirements. Quoting remotely in any additional option classes would require one additional seat for every forty (40) option classes remotely quoted.

Furthermore, Exchange memberships used to satisfy membership requirements to remotely quote as an RROT may not be used for any other purpose while being used in an RROT capacity, including being leased to another member or for trading on the trading floor. An Exchange membership would include a regular membership and an options principal membership.

RROTs would also be required to provide continuous two-sided quotations in accordance with the parameters set forth in Rule 958—ANTE (c) in at least 60% of the series of their assigned classes. RROTs may not enter quotations electronically in options classes in which they are not assigned as an RROT. The initial size of an RROT's remote quotes must be for at least ten contracts (undecremented size). An RROT may be called upon by a Floor Official to submit a single quote or maintain continuous quotes in one or more series of an option class to which the RROT is assigned whenever it is in the interest of maintaining a fair and orderly market. Finally, RROTs will be subject to the current designation of options areas that exist for ROTs.7 In this manner, options and equity trading will be sufficiently separated so that no time or place advantage may potentially be derived from the proximity of the equity and option trading areas. As a result, in connection with the introduction of RROTs, the Exchange represents that there will be no “line of sight” between designated options trading areas and equity trading areas on the floor of the Exchange.

The Exchange's proposal further states that an RROT may not be assigned to an option class where the RROT has a direct or indirect affiliate who is an RROT, ROT, or specialist in that option class. The Exchange's proposal specifically requires that no person who is either directly or indirectly affiliated with an RROT may submit quotations as an RROT, ROT, or specialist in an option class in which the affiliate RROT is assigned. Furthermore, RROTs would be required to maintain information barriers that are reasonably designed to prevent the misuse of material, non-public information with any affiliates that may conduct a brokerage business in option classes assigned to an RROT, or that may act as a market maker in any security underlying options assigned to an RROT. The proposal further requires RROTs to comply with Rule 193 regarding the misuse of material non-public information between the affiliate and the specialist member organization. The purpose of this provision is to prevent numerous affiliated parties from quoting electronically in the same option classes and receiving multiple automatic allocations for the same or affiliated beneficial account owners.

iv. 900—ANTE. Rule 900—ANTE currently sets forth the applicability, definitions and references on ANTE. The Exchange proposes to include the definition of an RROT in 900—ANTE. An RROT is defined as a ROT that is a member or member organization so designated by the Exchange that would be awarded remote quoting rights to enter bids and offers electronically from locations other than the trading crowd where the applicable options class is traded on the Exchange's physical trading floor. Furthermore, an RROT would be subject to the obligations set forth under proposed Rule 994—ANTE. Exchange rules applicable to ROTs would not apply to RROTs unless specified.

The Exchange also proposes to amend the term “ANTE Participant” to include an RROT assigned to trade a specific options class on the ANTE System.

v. 918—ANTE. Rule 918—ANTE currently sets forth the automated opening, reopening and closing rotation procedures, trading halts and the supervision of such procedures. The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .01 to Rule 918—ANTE to include paragraph (c), which provides that RROTs may not submit market orders prior to the opening. RROTs may, however, submit quotes or limit orders prior to the opening.

vi. 935—ANTE. Rule 935—ANTE currently provides for the allocation of all contracts executed through the ANTE System. The Exchange proposes to amend to Rule 935—ANTE to include RROTs. Under the Exchange's proposal, the ANTE System will allocate executed contracts to non-broker-dealer customers, broker-dealers, competing market makers, specialists, ROTs and RROTs in accordance with the provisions therein.

vii. 936—ANTE and 936C—ANTE. Rule 936—ANTE and Rule 936C—ANTE govern the cancellation and adjustment of equity options transactions and the cancellation and adjustment of index option transactions, respectively.8 The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 936—ANTE and Rule 936C—ANTE to include RROT transactions in those that may be cancelled or adjusted. The proposal further modifies the notification requirement to allow Trading Officials and/or the Obvious Error Panel reviewing the transactions to either orally or electronically notify the members involved in the transaction of their determination. The purpose of the proposed electronic notification requirement is to provide notice to RROTs engaging in transactions off the Exchange's physical trading floor.

viii. 950—ANTE. Rule 950—ANTE (b) currently provides rules for priority and parity at the opening. Paragraph (b)(i) specifically provides that after the opening, an options specialist acting as principal may only retain priority over, or be on parity with, orders for the accounts of broker-dealers, but may not retain priority over, or be on parity with, off-floor orders for the accounts of public customers. The Exchange proposes to amend 950—ANTE (b)(i) to identify RROTs as broker-dealers. Commentary .01 of paragraph (c) currently provides that after the opening, an options specialist acting as principal, may only retain priority over or be on parity with orders for the accounts of broker-dealers but may not retain priority over or be on parity with off-floor orders for the accounts of public customers. Commentary .02 of paragraph (c) provides that options orders for the accounts of broker-dealers may only retain priority over or be on parity with orders for the accounts of broker-dealers but may not retain priority over or be on parity with off-floor orders for the accounts of public customers. The proposed amendments to Commentaries .01 and .02 of paragraph (c) also categorize an RROT as a broker-dealer. Finally, the proposed amendment to Commentary .02 of paragraph (l) will require RROTs to compete with one another to improve the quoted markets in all series of option classes in which they trade.

ix. 951—ANTE. Rule 951—ANTE currently governs the bids and offers of options contracts. Commentary .01 to Rule 951—ANTE provides that if the bid or offer of a specialist or ROT, locks or crosses the ABBO, the ANTE System will revise the bid by one or more minimum price variations lower than the bid submitted, or revise the offer by one or more minimum price variations higher than the offer submitted, so that the bid or offer submitted does not lock or cross the ABBO provided.9 The Exchange proposes to amend Commentary .01 to Rule 951—ANTE to apply to RROTs.

9 The ANTE System collects all of the quotes being calculated by the specialist and each ROT, and determines the best bid and best offer for dissemination pursuant to the firm quote rule, as the Amex Best Bid and Offer (“ABBO”). The ANTE System never allows a locked or crossed market to occur in the ABBO. If a quote is submitted that would lock or cross the ABBO, the ANTE System will revise the bid or the offer by the minimum price variant(s) so that the ABBO is not locked or crossed.

x. 958—ANTE. Rule 958—ANTE governs ANTE options transactions of registered options traders. Pursuant to 958—ANTE (a), ROTs are assigned classes of options in accordance with the existing procedures set forth in Commentary .05. Rule 958—ANTE (a) also provides that any option transactions initiated by a ROT on the Floor and through the facilities of the Exchange for any account in which the ROT has an interest would be in such assigned classes. Paragraph (b) of Rule 958—ANTE provides that transactions of a ROT must be reasonably calculated to contribute to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and no ROT should enter into transactions or make bids or offers that are inconsistent with such a course of dealings. Paragraph (c) of Rule 958—ANTE provides that whenever ROTs participate in the trading of options in other than a floor brokerage capacity, or are called upon by a floor official or floor broker acting in an agency capacity, they would be required to make competitive bids and offers necessary, in a market making capacity, to contribute to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market. The Exchange proposes to apply paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of 958—ANTE to RROTs as they currently apply to ROTs.

Paragraph (h) currently provides that ROTs may choose to use an Exchange provided or proprietary automated quote system to calculate and disseminate quotes, or join the specialist's disseminated quotation in some or all of his assigned classes or series. Paragraph (h) further provides that ROTs must be physically present at the specialist's post on the floor of the Exchange where that options class is traded.

Under the Exchange's proposal, RROTs would also use an authorized or proprietary automated quote system to calculate and disseminate quotes. RROTs may not use the “join quote” feature in ANTE. The Exchange believes that requiring RROTs to submit their own quotes in options that an RROT is assigned will serve to further foster active quote competition. Finally, the Exchange proposes that RROTs, as well as ROTs and specialists, must compete with each other to improve the quoted markets in all series of option classes which they trade. The Exchange further proposes to remove the in-person requirement for RROTs as provided in paragraph (h) because the RROT may not be physically present.

xi. 958A—ANTE. Rule 958A—ANTE, the Exchange's Firm Quote Rule, currently provides that ROTs, when inputting their own quotes through an Exchange provided or proprietary automated quote calculation system, would each be considered a responsible broker or dealer for their bids or offers to the extent of their quotation size. The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 958A—ANTE (a)(ii)(C) to include RROTs as responsible broker-dealers to the extent of their quotation size for the purposes of this rule.

2. Statutory Basis

The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,10 in general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,11 in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principals of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.

10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will impose no burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

No written comments were solicited or received by the Exchange on this proposal.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the Exchange consents, the Commission will:

(A) By order approve such proposed rule change, as amended, or

(B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change, as amended, should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

• Send an e-mail to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include File Number SR-Amex-2005-100 on the subject line.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2005-100. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, Station Place, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Amex. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2005-100 and should be submitted on or before March 3, 2006.

For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.12

Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on February 1, 2006, the American Stock Exchange LLC (“Amex” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Amex. The Exchange has designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a due, fee or other charge imposed by the Exchange under section 19(b)(3)(A),3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

The Exchange proposes to revise its Specialist Transaction Fee. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Amex's Web site at http://www.amex.com, the Office of the Secretary, the Amex, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

In its filing with the Commission, Amex included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposal. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. Amex has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

Effective with transactions beginning October 3, 2005, the Exchange increased the Specialist Transaction Fee from $.00005 to $.00007 of the total value of a specialist's transactions in equities.5 After further consideration, analysis of the impact of the fee increase and discussions with its members, the Exchange proposes to rollback the increase in the Specialist Transaction Fee to $.00005. The increase in the Specialist Transaction Fee implemented in October 2005 was part of a number of changes to the Equity Fee Schedule, the purpose of which was to generate additional revenue for the Exchange and to create additional incentives for market participants to send order flow to the Amex. For market participants other than the specialists, the changes in the aggregate contributed to the increase in revenue for the Exchange. The changes to fees imposed on the specialists, which also generated an increase in revenue, included an increase in the Specialist Transaction Fee and the elimination of a rarely used exemption from the Transaction Fee for trades in paired securities.

According to the Exchange, the Specialist Transaction Fee is based on the dollar value of equity shares executed by the specialist. As a result, specialists trading high-priced and/or high volume securities account for a disproportionate amount of the revenue generated by the fee. The recent increase in the fee exacerbated this result. Rolling back the increase will alleviate, in part, this disproportionate impact on certain specialists. The rollback of the increase in the Specialist Transaction Fee will result in a decrease in the additional revenues expected to be generated by the recent changes to the Equity Fee Schedule. The Exchange represents that this decrease will not result in an increase or other revisions to fees charged to other market participants.

Notwithstanding the proposed reduction in the Specialist Transaction Fee,6 the Exchange believes that the recent changes to the Equity Fee Schedule continue to be an equitable allocation of reasonable fees among its members, issuers and other users of its facilities.

6 Amex clarified that although it refers in this sentence to the proposed rollback of the Specialist Transaction Fee from $.00007 to $.00005 as a “rebate,” it is more accurately characterized here as a “reduction” in the Specialist Transaction Fee. Telephone conversation between Claire McGrath, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Amex, and Johnna B. Dumler, Attorney, Division of Market Regulation, Commission, on February 6, 2006.

In a separate filing, submitted pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,7 the Exchange is also requesting approval to rebate the amount of increase in the Specialist Transaction Fee collected since October 3, 2005.8

7 15 U.S.C. 78s(b).

8See SR-Amex-2005-130.

2. Statutory Basis

The Amex believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act,9 in general, and furthers the objectives of section 6(b)(4) of the Act,10 in particular, in that it is designed to assure the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to eliminate a recent fee increase that it believes disproportionately impacts some members.

9 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

10 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

The Amex does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 11 and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder,12 since it establishes or changes a due, fee or other charge imposed by the Exchange.

11 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

12 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).

At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in the furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

• Send an e-mail to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include File Number SR-Amex-2006-008 on the subject line.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-Amex-2006-008. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Amex. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-Amex-2006-008 and should be submitted on or before March 3, 2006.

13 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.13

On August 5, 2005, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 a proposed rule change to adopt an electronic price improvement mechanism. On September 2, 2005, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.3 The proposed rule change, as amended, was published for comment in the Federal Register on October 18, 2005.4 On October 12, 2005, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change.5 The Commission received two comment letters with respect to the amended proposal,6 and on December 2, 2005, the Exchange filed its response to the comment letters.7 This order approves the proposed rule change as amended by Amendment No. 1, notices and solicits comments on Amendment No. 2, and grants accelerated approval to Amendment No. 2.

5 In Amendment No. 2, the CBOE proposes to amend proposed CBOE Rule 6.74A(b)(1)(E) so that members, not floor brokers, may submit RFR responses on behalf of customer orders resting at the top of the Exchange book. Amendment No. 2 also would amend proposed CBOE Rule 6.74A.06 with respect to information that the Exchange may provide to the Commission regarding a pilot program that would end on July 18, 2006.

The Exchange proposes to establish an electronic auction system (Automated Improvement Mechanism or “AIM”), which would expose certain orders electronically in an auction to provide such orders with the opportunity to receive an execution at an improved price.

The AIM auction is available only for orders that an Exchange member represents as an agent (“Agency Order”). To initiate the electronic auction, the Exchange member (“Initiating Member”) who represents an Agency Order would submit the Agency Order and a second order for the same size as the Agency Order (on the opposite side of the Agency Order) into the auction. If the Agency Order is for less than 50 contracts, the Initiating Member must stop the entire Agency Order as principal or with a solicited order at the better of (A) the national best bid or offer (“NBBO”) price improved by one minimum price improvement increment, which increment shall be determined by the Exchange but may not be smaller than one cent or (B) the Agency Order's limit price (if the Agency Order is a limit order). If the Agency Order is for 50 contracts or more, the Initiating Member must stop the entire Agency Order as principal or with a solicited order at the better of the NBBO or the Agency Order's limit price (if the Agency Order is a limit order). Thereafter, other Exchange participants would compete with the Initiating Member's second order to execute against the Agency Order. The second order submitted by the Initiating Member could be an order for the principal account of the Initiating Member (“principal order”) or an order solicited by the Initiating Member to trade with another member or a non-member customer or broker-dealer (“solicited order”).8 Under the proposal, the Initiating Member may enter the second order in one of two formats: (1) At a specified single price or (2) with a non-price specific commitment to match as principal the price and size of all auction responses (“Auto-Match”). If the Initiating Member enters the second order with Auto-Match, then the Initiating Member would not have control over the prices at which it receives an allocation at the conclusion of the auction. After the commencement of an auction, the Initiating Member would not be able to cancel the auction.

8See CBOE Rule 6.9 for a definition of solicited order.

Upon receipt of an Agency Order and the second order, the Exchange would commence the auction by issuing a request for responses (“RFR”) detailing the side and size of the Agency Order.9 The auction would last for a random time period, from 3 seconds to 5 seconds, determined by the Exchange's system. During such time period, any Exchange market maker with an appointment in the options class may submit RFR responses (including multiple responses). In addition, any Exchange member acting as an agent for customer orders resting at the top of the Exchange's book opposite the Agency Order, may submit RFR responses on behalf of such customer orders (such RFR responses may not exceed the size of the customer orders).10 The RFR responses must specify price and size, and may not cross the Exchange's quote on the opposite side of the market as the Agency Order. All RFR responses would be “blind,” i.e., the RFR responses would not be visible to any other participants in the auction. Under the proposal, market makers may modify or cancel RFR responses prior to the conclusion of the auction. The Exchange may set the RFR response minimum price increment at no less than one cent.

9 The Exchange would send each RFR to all members electing to receive RFRs (i.e., those members who have established the necessary systems connectivity to receive RFRs). Thus, an Exchange member's election to receive RFRs would not be on an auction-by-auction basis.

10See Amendment No. 2, supra note 5.

Normally, the auction would end at the conclusion of the random 3 seconds to 5 seconds time period. However, under the proposal, the following events could prematurely end the auction: (1) If the Exchange Hybrid System receives an unrelated order in the same series as the Agency Order and such unrelated order is marketable against the Exchange's disseminated quote (when the quote is the NBBO) or the RFR responses; (2) if the Exchange Hybrid System receives an unrelated non-marketable limit order in the same series and on the opposite side of the market as the Agency Order that improves any RFR response; (3) any time an RFR response matches the Exchange's disseminated quote on the opposite side of the market; or (4) pursuant to a pilot program that would expire on July 18, 2006, any time there is a market maker to market maker quote lock on the Exchange in accordance with CBOE Rule 6.45A(d).11

11 In connection with this pilot program, pursuant to proposed CBOE Rule 6.74A.06, the Exchange would provide the Commission data (on a confidential basis) regarding the frequency of early terminations of the auction, and also the frequency of early terminations pursuant to this provision that result in favorable pricing for the Agency Order. See Amendment No. 2, supra note 5.

At the conclusion of the auction, the Agency Order would be allocated in accordance with applicable matching algorithm rules in effect for such option class subject to the following provisions. First, no participation entitlement would apply with respect to an AIM execution. Second, public customer orders in the Exchange book would have priority. Third, if the Exchange received an unrelated market order or marketable limit order on the opposite side of the Agency Order which prematurely ended the auction, such unrelated order would trade against the Agency Order at the midpoint of the best RFR response and the NBBO on the other side of the market (rounded towards the disseminated quote when necessary).12 Fourth, if the Exchange received an unrelated non-marketable limit order on the opposite side of the Agency Order which prematurely ended the auction, such unrelated limit order would trade against the Agency Order at the midpoint of the best RFR response and the unrelated order's limit price (rounded towards the unrelated order's limit price when necessary).13 Fifth, if the best price equals the Initiating Member's single-price submission, the Initiating Member's single-price submission would be allocated the greater of one contract or 40% of the order. However, if only one market maker matches the Initiating Member's single price submission, then the Initiating Member would be allocated 50% of the order. Sixth, if the Initiating Member selected Auto-Match for the second order, then the Initiating Member would be allocated its full size at each price point until a price point is reached where the balance of the order can be fully executed. At such price point, the Initiating Member would be allocated the greater of one contract or 40% of the remainder of the order. Seventh, if the auction does not result in price improvement over the Exchange's disseminated price at the commencement of the auction, resting unchanged quotes or orders that were disseminated at the best price before the auction started would have priority, after any public customer order priority and the Initiating Member's priority (40%) have been satisfied. Any unexecuted balance on the Agency Order would be allocated to RFR responses pursuant to the matching algorithm except that the RFR responses would be capped to the size of the unexecuted balance and the Initiating Member may not participate on any such balance unless the Agency Order would otherwise go unfilled. Finally, if the final auction price locks a customer order on the book on the same side as the Agency Order, then unless there is sufficient size in the RFR responses to execute both the Agency Order and the booked customer order (in which case they would both execute at the final auction price), the Agency Order would execute against the RFR responses at one minimum RFR response increment worse than the final Auction price against the auction participants that submitted the final auction price, and any balance would trade against the customer order in the book at such order's limit price.

12 For example, if an auction is underway for an Agency Order to buy and the CBOE quote (as well as the NBBO) is 1-1.15, with the RFRs at 1.12 and an unrelated market order to sell is received by the Exchange, the unrelated order would execute against the Agency Order at 1.06 (the midpoint of the best RFRs and the NBBO on the other side of the market, i.e., the best bid).

13 For example, using the same scenario as above except the unrelated order is a non-marketable limit order to sell at 1.10, the unrelated order would execute against the Agency Order at 1.11 (the midpoint of the best RFRs (1.12) and the unrelated order's limit price (1.10)).

If an unexecuted balance remains on the RFR responses after the Agency Order has been executed and such balance could trade against any unrelated order(s) that caused the auction to conclude, then the RFR response balance would trade against the unrelated order(s).

The CBOE proposes several interpretations and policies to proposed CBOE Rule 6.74A. First, an Initiating Member would be permitted to use the auction only when there is a genuine intention to execute a bona fide transaction. Second, a pattern or practice of submitting unrelated orders that cause an auction to prematurely conclude would be deemed conduct inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade and a violation of CBOE Rule 4.1 and other Exchange Rules. Third, initially, and during a Pilot Period, which would end on July 18, 2006, there would be no minimum size requirement for orders to be eligible for the auction. During this Pilot Period, the Exchange would submit on a confidential basis certain data, periodically as required by the Commission, to provide supporting evidence that, among other things, there is meaningful competition for all size orders and that there is an active and liquid market functioning on the Exchange outside of the auction mechanism. Fourth, any solicited orders submitted by the Initiating Member to trade against the Agency Order would not be permitted to be for the account of a market maker assigned to the option class. Fifth, the Exchange would communicate any Exchange determinations pursuant to the proposed rule such as eligible classes, order size parameters, and the minimum price increment for RFR responses, in a Regulatory Circular. Finally, proposed CBOE Rule 6.74A(b)(2)(E), which would end the auction due to a lock on the CBOE market, would operate as a pilot program until July 18, 2006.

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

After careful review of the amended proposal and consideration of the comment letters and the Response Letter, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, to establish rules for the implementation of the AIM auction, is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange 14 and, in particular, the requirements of section 6 of the Act.15 Specifically, as discussed in detail below, the Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act,16 which requires, in part, that the rules of an exchange be designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, and processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Section 6(b)(5) of the Act 17 also requires that the rules of an exchange not be designed to permit unfair discrimination among customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.

14 In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule change's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

15 15 U.S.C. 78f.

16 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

17Id.

The Commission believes that approving the Exchange's proposal to establish the AIM should confer benefits to the public by increasing competition between and among the options exchanges, resulting in better prices and executions for investors. The Commission also believes that access to the AIM auction for those who may wish to compete for an Agency Order should be sufficient to provide opportunities for a meaningful, competitive auction. The Commission therefore finds that for the reasons discussed below, the Exchange's proposal is consistent with the Act.

A. Internalization

In its comment letter, Citadel asks the Commission to reject the proposal because the AIM auction and other similar auctions encourage internalization, which Citadel believes would hinder price discovery and harm investors with worse prices.18 Citadel states that these auctions harm the options markets and investors by hindering price discovery, discouraging aggressive quoting, eliminating substantial price improvement by diminishing the ability of customers to interact with one another; and undercutting customer limit orders.19 Therefore, Citadel urges the Commission to reevaluate the auctions currently in operation 20 and determine whether such auctions should operate.21

In the Response Letter, the Exchange states that it should be allowed to adopt the AIM auction for competitive reasons, since other options exchanges have similar auctions, and if the Commission were to take any actions with respect to these auctions, such actions should affect the options exchanges equally at the same time.22

22See Response Letter, supra note 7, at pp. 1-2.

After considering the Citadel Letter and the Response Letter, the Commission believes that the Citadel Letter does not raise any novel regulatory concerns that would preclude the approval of the proposed rule change. The Commission believes that the proposed CBOE AIM auction provides limitations on internalization comparable to the other exchanges' rules that guarantee members the right to internalize their customers' orders. Specifically, like the auction rules previously approved by the Commission, the proposed AIM rules require the Initiating Member to expose the Agency Order in the auction before the Initiating Member may trade with the Agency Order.

B. Solicitation Process

Proposed CBOE Rule 6.74A permits a member that represents an Agency Order to execute that Agency Order in the AIM auction against principal interest or against a solicited order. BOX argues that the proposal should define how the Initiating Member solicits the other side of the Agency Order. BOX contends that the proposed rules need to clarify the parameters for a market maker and the Initiating Member's ability to access customer information that may be derived from solicited orders and agency orders. BOX notes that the Commission required BOX to codify procedural protections on BOX's Directed Order process (which it termed its version of a solicitation process), and BOX believes that it would be placed at a competitive advantage if the Commission does not require CBOE to adopt similar procedural protections. Finally, BOX notes that brokers in the options industry generally limit solicitation of large customer orders (e.g., greater than 300 contracts). BOX believes that the Exchange should clarify why the proposal would permit solicitation of orders of all sizes, particularly for orders of less than 50 contracts.23

23See BOX Letter, supra note 6, at pp. 4-5.

In the Response Letter, the Exchange notes that solicited orders are processed on the floor of all floor-based options exchanges. The Exchange contends that ISE's PIM is identical to the proposed rule change in that the PIM auction rules allow the initiating member to pair the agency order with a facilitation order or a solicitation order. Further, CBOE notes that ISE's rules do not contain elaborate procedures regarding the solicitation process. The Exchange further notes that unlike the BOX Directed Order process, the AIM proposal provides that solicited orders submitted by the Initiating Member may not be for the account of a market maker assigned to the option class. Thus, the CBOE contends that any comparison between the AIM auction and BOX's Directed Order process is not relevant. Finally, with respect to the size of a solicited order, the Exchange believes that unless other options exchanges adopt size limits, it would be inappropriate for the Commission to require that the CBOE impose such size limitations on solicited orders for the AIM auction.24

24See Response Letter, supra note 7, at pp. 4-5.

The Commission believes that the proposal regarding solicitation process is sufficiently clear. The Commission notes that CBOE Rule 6.9 limits solicitation from members or non-member customers or broker-dealers.25 In addition, CBOE Rule 4.1 prohibits members from engaging in acts or practices inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade.26 The Commission further notes that CBOE has proposed an additional limitation in CBOE Rule 6.74A.04 that would require that any solicited orders submitted by the Initiating Member to trade against the Agency Order not be for the account of a Market-Maker assigned to the option class. The Commission believes that these provisions should permit members to solicit, in advance, the other side of an order, while providing for adequate disclosure of such orders to limit manipulation and abuse.

25 CBOE Rule 6.9.

26 CBOE Rule 4.1.

C. Competition in the AIM

Proposed CBOE Rule 6.74A(a)(4) would require that there be at least three Market Makers quoting in a relevant series at the time an Initiating Member submits its Agency Order into the AIM.27 The Commission believes that this requirement should improve the opportunity for an Agency Order to be exposed to a competitive auction.28

27See also ISE Rule 723(b)(1) and BOX Rules Chapter V, Sec. 18(e).

28See BOX Order, supra note 20.

BOX questions how public customers may participate in the RFR.29 The Exchange proposes to clarify in Amendment No. 2 that members acting as agent for orders resting at the top of the Exchange's book opposite the Agency Order may submit responses to the RFR on behalf of such orders.30 In its Response Letter, the Exchange further explains that at the time customer orders are submitted to the member representing such orders, the member and the customer would discuss price improvement parameters, and the CBOE member representing customer orders would actually represent those customer orders during an AIM auction.31 Based on the Exchange's representations, the Commission believes that public customer access to the AIM auction should be comparable to customers' access to open outcry auctions on the current floor-based exchanges.

29See BOX Letter, supra note 6, at p. 5.

30See Amendment No. 2, supra note 5.

31See Response Letter, supra note 7, at p. 5.

D. Duration of the AIM

The CBOE proposes that the duration of each RFR period be for a random time period determined by the system that would not be less than 3 seconds and would not exceed 5 seconds.32 The Commission believes that a RFR period between 3 and 5 seconds randomly determined by the Exchange's system should afford electronic crowds sufficient time to respond to, and compete for, Agency Orders submitted by an Initiating Member. The Commission expects that electronic systems should be readily available to CBOE members to allow them to respond to the RFR broadcasts.

32 The AIM would end prior to the expiration of the RFR period under certain circumstances. See proposed CBOE Rule 6.74A(b)(2) and discussion in text accompanying notes 33-35.

E. Termination of Auction by Unrelated Orders

As proposed, the AIM would end prematurely under certain circumstances: 33 (1) If the Exchange Hybrid System receives an unrelated order in the same series as the Agency Order and such unrelated order is marketable against the Exchange's disseminated quote (when the quote is the NBBO) or the RFR responses; (2) if the Exchange Hybrid System receives an unrelated non-marketable limit order in the same series as the Agency Order and on the opposite side of the market as the Agency Order that improves any RFR response; (3) any time an RFR response matches the Exchange's disseminated quote on the opposite side of the market; or (4) pursuant to a pilot program that would expire on July 18, 2006, any time there is a market maker to market maker quote lock on the Exchange in accordance with CBOE Rule 6.45A(d).

33 With respect to the same series, no AIM auction will run simultaneously with another AIM auction, nor will AIM auctions be permitted to queue or overlap in any manner. See proposed CBOE Rule 6.74A(b).

BOX argues that the termination of the auction by an unrelated non-marketable limit order in the same series as the Agency Order and on the opposite side of the market could expose the AIM auction to manipulation. BOX believes the proposal is unclear as to why such orders should terminate the auction, unless they are for the full size of the Agency Order; BOX notes that other similar auction systems, such as the systems of BOX and ISE, treat such orders as price improvement orders and argues that categorizing such orders as price improvement orders would increase the number of RFR responses and maximize price improvement potential in the AIM auction.34

34See BOX Letter, supra note 6, at p. 3.

In the Response Letter, the Exchange asserts that both the unrelated non-marketable limit order and the Agency Order should be provided with price improvement (rather than the Agency Order only as provided in the BOX PIP and ISE PIM). The Exchange agreed with BOX that early termination of the auction for the purpose of manipulating the market would be inappropriate, and noted that according to proposed CBOE Rule 6.74.02, a pattern of submitting unrelated orders to end the auction prematurely would be a violation of Exchange rules and would be deemed conduct inconsistent with just and equitable principles of trade.35

35See Response Letter, supra note 7, pp. 3-4.

The Commission believes that the treatment of unrelated non-marketable orders on the opposite side of the Agency Order is consistent with the requirements of the Act. The Exchange's proposal provides that the unrelated order and the Agency Order would receive price improvement, and the Commission believes that allowing both orders to be eligible for price improvement should benefit investors and customers. In addition, the Exchange's proposed interpretation would prohibit Exchange members from deliberately submitting orders to end the AIM auction prematurely. The Commission, however, expects the Exchange to analyze the impact of unrelated orders on the AIM auction to ensure that Agency Orders are not being deprived of a full opportunity for price improvement by the premature conclusion of an AIM auction.

F. Allocation at the Conclusion of the Auction1. Order Matching Allocation Algorithms

At the conclusion of the auction, the Agency Order would be allocated in accordance with applicable matching algorithm rules in effect for such class subject to certain conditions.36 BOX notes that proposed CBOE Rule 6.74A(b)(3) does not specify the matching algorithm as to how orders will be allocated,37 and in its Response Letter, the Exchange has clarified that the matching algorithms are defined in CBOE Rule 6.45A for equity options and CBOE Rule 6.45B for index options.38 The Commission believes that the matching algorithm set forth in these rules is sufficiently clear regarding how orders are to be allocated in the AIM auction.

36See proposed CBOE Rule 6.74A(b)(3). The Commission notes that to be consistent with the requirements of section 11(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. 78k(a), and Rule 11a1-1(T) under the Act, 17 CFR 240.11a1-1(T), Exchange Members must yield priority in the AIM auction to all non-Member orders, unless another exception to Section 11(a) applies.

37See BOX Letter, supra note 6, at p. 4.

38See Response Letter, supra note 7, at pp. 3-4.

2. Auto-Match

To initiate the electronic auction, the Initiating Member who represents an Agency Order would submit the Agency Order and also either specify a single-price submission to cross the Agency Order or indicate that it is willing to automatically match as principal the price and size of all auction responses (“Auto-Match”). If the Initiating Member uses the Auto-Match feature, the Initiating Member would not have control over the prices at which it receives an allocation of the Agency Order at the conclusion of the auction.

BOX, in its comment letter, argues that the Auto-Match feature of the AIM auction provides unfair competitive advantages to the Initiating Member. BOX contends that since the Exchange system governs the Auto-Match feature, it is likely to confer upon the Initiating Member a technological advantage in the sense that the Initiating Member would have the fastest response time to any competing RFR responses. BOX further contends that the proposal appears to provide the Initiating Member with an automatic “last look” at the best priced RFR response, thereby guaranteeing the Initiating Member an allocation in any auction. BOX also notes that RFR responses would not be visible to other AIM auction participants and believes that as a result, Exchange members would not have sufficient information to make a fully informed decision to compete for the Agency Order. Finally, BOX believes the ability of the Initiating Member to use Auto-Match would provide the Initiating Member an unfair advantage over customer orders and thus raise customer priority concerns.39

39See BOX Letter, supra note 6, at pp. 2, 5.

In its Response Letter, the Exchange states that a blind auction is a key component to AIM and that a blind auction would encourage participants to quote their best prices. The Exchange believes that in a blind auction, there is greater incentive for participants to submit their best prices at the outset, whereas in a non-blind auction, participants would need to submit only the minimal amount of improvement. Because AIM is a blind auction, the Exchange adds, it sought to propose a means by which the Initiating Member could still receive a guaranteed participation, i.e., Auto-Match, similar to other mini-auctions, like BOX's PIP. CBOE notes that since PIP is not a blind auction, the initiating member could always configure its system to match the best response. Further, CBOE points out that under the terms of its proposal, when the Initiating Member selects Auto-Match prior to the start of the auction, the available liquidity would be doubled and pricing would be completely out of the Initiating Member's control. Finally, the Exchange states that BOX's argument that Auto-Match would provide the Initiating Member with some sort of technological advantage (in the form of faster response time) over other participants is misleading. The CBOE notes that once Auto-Match is selected (before the auction), the Initiating Member does not respond at all, but instead must honor the prices set forth in the responses received from other participants.40

40See Response Letter, supra note 7, at pp. 2-3.

The Commission believes that the Auto-Match feature of the AIM auction would not unfairly discriminate against other AIM participants. The Commission disagrees that a blind auction would necessarily deprive auction participants with information necessary to submit RFR responses. When the AIM system receives an Agency Order, the Exchange would submit a RFR to all participating members detailing the side and size of the Agency Order. RFR responses would not be visible to any of the auction participants, including the Initiating Member.

Finally, the Commission believes that an Initiating Member's use of Auto-Match would not have customer priority issues, since the proposal provides that public customer orders in the book must have priority.41 At the same time, because the Auto-Match feature is offered only to the Initiating Member and would provide the Initiating Member with a guaranteed participation, the Commission believes it is essential that the Exchange provide data on the frequency of use of Auto-Match and its effect on price improvement to permit the Commission to monitor the impact of the proposed rule change on the competitive process.42

41See proposed CBOE rule 6.74A(b)(3)(B).

42See Section II.G.

G. Price Improvement versus Facilitation

As discussed above, an Initiating Member who submits an Agency Order into the AIM auction must “stop” the Agency Order as follows: (1) If the Agency Order is for less than 50 contracts, the Initiating Member must stop the entire Agency Order as principal or with a solicited order at the better of (A) the NBBO price improved by one minimum price improvement increment, which increment shall be determined by the Exchange but may not be smaller than one cent or (B) the Agency Order's limit price (if the Agency Order is a limit order); or (2) if the Agency Order is for 50 contracts or more, the Initiating Member must stop the entire Agency Order as principal or with a solicited order at the better of the NBBO or the Agency Order's limit price (if the Agency Order is a limit order).43

43See proposed CBOE Rule 6.74A(a)(2) and (3).

BOX argues that the AIM rules should provide a minimum price improvement over the NBBO for orders of 50 contracts or greater. BOX noted that other auction systems such as ISE's PIM and BOX's PIP initiate auctions for such orders with a required price improvement of at least one cent better than the NBBO.44 In response, the Exchange, however, points out that all of the options exchanges, other than BOX, allow guaranteed facilitation participation at the NBBO for orders of 50 contracts or greater.45

44See BOX Letter, supra note 3.

45See Response Letter, supra note 7, at p. 4.

The Commission believes that stopping an Agency Order of 50 contracts or greater at the better of the NBBO or the Agency Order's limit price is consistent with the requirements of the Act. The Commission notes that it has approved rules of other options exchanges that permit facilitation at the NBBO for orders of 50 contracts or greater.46 The Commission further notes that unlike the facilitation mechanisms of some exchanges, once the Initiating Member has submitted an Agency Order and designated a single-price submission or auto-match into the AIM auction, it may not modified or cancelled. Therefore, the Agency Order submitted to the AIM auction is guaranteed an execution price of at least the NBBO and, moreover, is given the opportunity for price improvement beyond the NBBO.

Like the BOX's PIP auction and the ISE's PIM auction, the AIM auction would be available for orders of fewer than 50 contracts. Under the Exchange's proposal, there would be no minimum size requirement for orders entered into the AIM, for a pilot period expiring on July 18, 2006.47

47 The July 18, 2006 pilot expiration date corresponds to the expiration of a similar pilot program for the BOX's PIP, and ISE's PIM. See BOX Rules, Chapter V, Sec. 18, Supplementary Material .01, and ISE Rule 723, Supplementary Material .03.

The Commission believes that the Exchange's proposal should provide small customer orders with the opportunity for price improvement, and is consistent with the Act. In particular, any Agency Order for less than 50 contracts that is entered into the AIM is guaranteed an execution at the end of the auction at a price at least a penny better than the NBBO. The Commission will evaluate the AIM auction during the Pilot Period to determine whether it would be beneficial to customers and to the options market as a whole to approve any proposal requesting permanent approval to permit orders of fewer than 50 contracts to be submitted to the AIM auction. In addition, the Commission will examine the data submitted by the Exchange with respect to situations in which the AIM auction is terminated prematurely by an unrelated order. To aid the Commission in its evaluation, the CBOE represents that it will provide the following information each month:

(1) The number of orders of fewer than 50 contracts entered into the AIM auction;

(2) The percentage of all orders of fewer than 50 contracts sent to CBOE that are entered into CBOE's AIM auction;

(3) The percentage of all CBOE trades represented by orders of fewer than 50 contracts;

(4) The percentage of all CBOE trades effected through the AIM auction represented by orders of fewer than 50 contracts;

(5) The percentage of all contracts traded on CBOE represented by orders of fewer than 50 contracts;

(6) The percentage of all contracts effected through the AIM auction represented by orders of fewer than 50 contracts;

(7) The spread in the option, at the time an order of fewer than 50 contracts is submitted to the AIM auction;

(8) The number of orders of 50 contracts or greater entered into the AIM auction;

(9) The percentage of all orders of 50 contracts or greater sent to CBOE that are entered into CBOE's AIM auction;

(10) The spread in the option, at the time an order of 50 contracts or greater is submitted to the AIM auction;

(13) The number of orders submitted by Exchange members when the spread was $.05, $.10, $.15, etc. For each spread, specify the percentage of contracts in orders of fewer than 50 contracts submitted to CBOE's AIM that were traded by: (a) the Exchange member that submitted the order to the AIM; (b) CBOE Market Makers assigned to the class; (c) other CBOE members; (d) Public Customer Orders; and (e) unrelated orders (orders in standard increments entered during the AIM auction). For each spread, also specify the percentage of contracts in orders of 50 contracts or greater submitted to CBOE's AIM that were traded by: (a) the Exchange member that submitted the order to the AIM; (b) CBOE Market Makers assigned to the class; (c) other CBOE members; (d) Public Customer Orders; and (e) unrelated orders (orders in standard increments entered during the AIM auction);

(14) The number of times that a market or marketable limit order in the same series on the same side of the market as the Agency Order prematurely ended the AIM auction, and the number of times such orders were entered by the same (or affiliated) firm that initiated the AIM auction that was terminated;

(15) The percentage of AIM early terminations due to the receipt of a market or marketable limit order in the same series on the same side of the market that occurred within a 1/2 second of the start of the AIM auction; the percentage that occurred within one second of the start of the AIM auction; the percentage that occurred within 11/2 second of the start of the AIM auction; the percentage that occurred within 2 seconds of the start of the AIM auction; the percentage that occurred within 21/2 seconds of the AIM auction; and the average amount of price improvement provided to the Agency Order where the AIM auction is terminated early at each of these time periods;

(16) The number of times that a market or marketable limit order in the same series on the opposite side of the market as the Agency Order prematurely ended the AIM auction and at what time the unrelated order ended the AIM auction, and the number of times such orders were entered by the same (or affiliated) firm that initiated the AIM auction that was terminated;

(17) The percentage of AIM auction early terminations due to the receipt of a market or marketable limit order in the same series on the opposite side of the market that occurred within a 1/2 second of the start of the AIM auction; the percentage that occurred within one second of the start of the AIM auction; the percentage that occurred within 11/2 second of the start of the AIM auction; the percentage that occurred within 2 seconds of the start of the AIM auction; the percentage that occurred within 21/2 seconds of the AIM auction; and the average amount of price improvement provided to the Agency Order where the AIM auction is terminated early at each of these time periods;

(18) The number of times that an RFR response matching the Exchange's disseminated quote on the opposite side of the market from the RFR responses prematurely ended the AIM auction and at what time the RFR response ended the AIM auction, and the number of times such orders were entered by the same (or affiliated) firm that initiated the AIM auction that was terminated;

(19) The percentage of AIM auction early terminations due to the receipt of an RFR response matching the Exchange's disseminated quote on the opposite side of the market from the RFR responses that occurred within a 1/2 second of the start of the AIM auction; the percentage that occurred within one second of the start of the AIM auction; the percentage that occurred within 11/2 second of the start of the AIM auction; the percentage that occurred within 2 seconds of the start of the AIM auction; the percentage that occurred within 21/2 seconds of the AIM auction; and the average amount of price improvement provided to the Agency Order where the AIM auction is terminated early at each of these time periods;

(20) The number of times that a quote lock on the Exchange pursuant to CBOE Rule 6.45A(d) prematurely ended the AIM auction and at what time the quote lock ended the AIM auction, and the number of times such orders were entered by the same (or affiliated) firm that initiated the AIM that was terminated;

(21) With respect to a quote lock on the Exchange pursuant to CBOE Rule 6.45A(d) that has occurred with an Agency Order to buy, the number of times that the quote was locked at the existing best bid and the number of times that the quote was locked at the existing best offer, and the firm that caused the quote lock;

(22) With respect to a quote lock on the Exchange pursuant to CBOE Rule 6.45A(d) that has occurred with an Agency Order to sell, the number of times that the quote was locked at the existing best bid and the number of times that the quote was locked at the existing best offer, and the firm that caused the quote lock;

(23) The frequency with which early termination due to a quote lock on the Exchange pursuant to CBOE Rule 6.45A(d) results in price improvement for the Agency Order; and the average amount of price improvement provided to the Agency Order;

(24) The average amount of price improvement provided to the Agency Order when the AIM auction is not terminated early (i.e., runs the full three seconds); and

(25) The percentage of all CBOE trades effected through the AIM auction in which the Initiating Member has chosen the Auto-Match feature, and the average amount of price improvement provided to the Agency Order when the Initiating Member has chosen the Auto-Match feature vs. the average amount of price improvement provided to the Agency Order when the Initiating Member has chosen a single-price submission.

IV. Solicitation of Comments on Amendment No. 2

Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning Amendment No. 2, including whether Amendment No. 2 is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

• Send an e-mail to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include File Number SR-CBOE-2005-60 on the subject line.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2005-60. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2005-60 and should be submitted on or before March 3, 2006.

V. Accelerated Approval of Amendment No. 2

The Commission finds good cause to approve Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after the amendment is published for comment in the Federal Register pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act.48 The revisions made to the proposed rule change, as amended, in Amendment No. 2 clarified that Exchange members, when acting as agent for orders resting at the top of the Exchange's book on the other side of the Agency Order, may submit RFR responses on behalf of such orders. In addition, Amendment No. 2 clarified that the Exchange would submit certain data, as required by the Commission, during the Pilot Period and information submitted by the Exchange to the Commission would be on a confidential basis.

48 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

The Commission believes that the proposed changes in Amendment No. 2 are necessary to the proper functioning and implementation of AIM. The Commission believes that the proposed changes in Amendment No. 2 provide a clearer understanding of the operation of AIM and the Pilot Period and raise no new issues of regulatory concern. For these reasons, the Commission believes that accelerated approval of Amendment No. 2 is appropriate. Accordingly, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,49 the Commission finds good cause exists to approve Amendment No. 2 prior to the 30th day after notice of the Amendment is published in the Federal Register.

49 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

VI. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change, as amended, is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with section 6(b)(5) of the Act.50

50 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5). In connection with the issuance of this approval order, neither the Commission nor its staff is granting any exemptive or no-action relief from the requirements of Rule 10b-10 under the Act. 17 CFR 240.10b-10. Accordingly, a broker-dealer executing a customer order through the AIM auction will need to comply with all applicable requirements of that Rule.

It is therefore ordered, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,51 that the proposed rule change (SR-CBOE-2005-60) and Amendment No. 1 thereto, are approved, and that Amendment No. 2 thereto is approved on an accelerated basis, except that (1) paragraph (b)(2)(E) of CBOE Rule 6.74A is approved on a pilot basis until July 18, 2006; and (2) there shall be no minimum size requirement for orders entered into the AIM, for a pilot period expiring on July 18, 2006.

51 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.52

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”) 1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on January 31, 2006, the Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (“CBOE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The CBOE has filed this proposal pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act 3 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,4 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission.5 The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

3 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).

4 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

5 The CBOE has asked the Commission to waive the five-day pre-filing requirement and the 30-day operative delay provided in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii). 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

The CBOE proposes to amend CBOE Rule 8.7, “Obligations of Market Makers,” to modify the bid/ask differential rules for options trading in open outcry and on the CBOE's Hybrid System (“Hybrid”) and Hybrid 2.0 Platform (“Hybrid 2.0”).6 The text of the proposed rule change appears below. Proposed new language is italicized; proposed deletions are bracketed.

6 Hybrid is the CBOE's trading platform that allows individual Market Makers to submit electronic quotes in their appointed classes. Hybrid 2.0 is an enhanced trading platform that allows remote quoting by authorized categories of members. See CBOE Rule 1.1(aaa).

Rule 8.7—Obligations of Market-Makers

Rule 8.7. (a) No change

(b) Appointment. With respect to each class of option contracts for which he holds an Appointment under Rule 8.3, a Market-Maker has a continuous obligation to engage, to a reasonable degree under the existing circumstances, in dealings for his own account when there exists, or it is reasonably anticipated that there will exist, a lack of price continuity, a temporary disparity between the supply of and demand for a particular option contract, or a temporary distortion of the price relationships between option contracts of the same class. Without limiting the foregoing, a Market-Maker is expected to perform the following activities in the course of maintaining a fair and orderly market:

(i)-(iii) No change

(iv) To price options contracts fairly by, among other things, bidding and/or offering in the following manner:

(A) Bidding and Offering in Open Outcry. With respect to all option classes traded on the Exchange, bids and offers made in open outcry shall be priced so as to create differences of no more than $0.25 between the bid and offer for each option contract for which the bid is less than $2, no more than $0.40 where the bid is at least $2 but does not exceed $5, no more than $0.50 where the bid is more than $5 but does not exceed $10, no more than $0.80 where the bid is more than $10 but does not exceed $20, and no more than $1 where the bid is more than $20, provided that the [appropriate Market Performance Committee] Exchange may establish differences other than the above for one or more options series. The bid/ask differentials stated above shall not apply to in-the-money series where the quote width (i) on the primary market of the underlying security[ies market], or (ii) calculated by the Exchange or its agent for various indices pursuant to Interpretation .08 of Rule 8.7, as applicable, is wider than the differentials set forth above. For these series, the bid/ask differential may be as wide as the quotation on the primary market of the underlying security or calculated by the Exchange or its agent for various indices, as applicable.

([A]C) Option Classes Trading on the Hybrid Trading System and Hybrid 2.0 Platform. Except as provided in subparagraphs (i) and (ii) below, [O]option[s] [on] classes trading on the Hybrid Trading [s]System and the Hybrid 2.0 Platform may be quoted electronically with a difference not to exceed $5 between the bid and offer regardless of the price of the bid. [The $5 quote widths shall only apply to classes trading on the Hybrid system and only following the opening rotation in each security (i.e., the widths specified in paragraph (b)(iv) above shall apply during opening rotation).] The provisions of Rule 8.7(b)(iv)(A) shall apply to any [Q]quotes given in open outcry in Hybrid classes and Hybrid 2.0 classes[may not be quoted with $5 widths and instead must comply with the legal width requirements (e.g., no more than $0.25 between the bid and offer for each option contract for which the bid is less than $2) described in paragraph (iv) and not subparagraph (iv)(A)].

i. The $5 bid/ask differential stated in subparagraph (C) above shall not apply to in-the-money series where the quote width on the primary market of the underlying security, or the quote width calculated by the Exchange or its agent for various indices pursuant to Interpretation .08, is wider than $5. For these series, the bid/ask differential may be as wide as the quote width on the primary market of the underlying security or calculated by the Exchange or its agent, as applicable; and

ii. The Exchange may establish quote width differences other than as provided in subparagraph (C) for one or more option series.

In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.

The CBOE proposes to make a number of changes to its rules relating to bid/ask differentials as described below, including reorganizing CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(iv) to set forth in separate paragraphs the applicable bid/ask differentials in open outcry, during the opening rotation, and for option classes trading on Hybrid or Hybrid 2.0.

CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(iv) establishes maximum bid/ask differentials (also referred to as quote spread requirements) for Market Makers that vary depending upon the price of the option class and the trading platform on which the option class trades (e.g., Hybrid, Non-Hybrid). For bids and offers in open outcry, the allowable bid/ask differentials are currently no more than $0.25 when the bid is less than $2, no more than $0.40 when the bid is at least $2 but does not exceed $5, no more than $0.50 where the bid is more than $5 but does not exceed $10, no more than $0.80 when the bid is more than $10 but does not exceed $20, and no more than $1 where the bid is more than $20. CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(iv) provides that the Exchange may establish differences other than the above for one or more option series.7 Additionally, CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(4) provides that the differentials stated above do not apply to in-the-money-series where the underlying securities market is wider than the above; for those series, the differential may be as wide as the quotation on the primary market of the underlying security. With respect to option classes trading on Hybrid or Hybrid 2.0, bids and offers may be quoted electronically with a difference not to exceed $5 following the opening rotation regardless of the price of the bid.

7 The CBOE proposes to amend CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(iv) to substitute the Exchange for the appropriate Market Performance Committee.

With respect to the bid/ask differentials in open outcry, the CBOE is proposing to amend CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(iv) to modify the existing allowable bid/ask differentials as follows. The proposed rule change maintains in amended paragraph (A) of CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(iv) the existing provisions of CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(iv) which allow the bid/ask differentials for in-the-money series to be quoted in open outcry as wide as the quotation in the underlying securities market. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to cross reference in amended CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(iv)(A) the provisions of CBOE Rule 8.7, Interpretation and Policy .08, pertaining to bid/ask differentials for index options as to which the Exchange or its authorized agent calculates bids and asks.8 Thus, under CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(iv)(A), as amended, the bid/ask differentials for in-the-money series of index options may be as wide as the bid/ask differential calculated by the CBOE or its authorized agent pursuant to CBOE Rule 8.7, Interpretation and Policy .08.

8 CBOE Rule 8.7, Interpretation and Policy .08, provides that the Exchange or its authorized agent may calculate bid/ask values for various indexes for the sole purpose of determining permissible bid/ask differentials on options on those indexes.

The proposed rule change also establishes a new paragraph (B) under CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(iv), which provides that the provisions of CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(iv)(A), as amended, shall apply during the opening rotation in Hybrid classes, Hybrid 2.0 classes, and non-Hybrid and non-Hybrid 2.0 classes. As noted above, CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(iv)(A), as amended, sets forth the permissible bid/ask differentials for trading in open outcry. The CBOE states that new paragraph (B) of CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(iv) is consistent with the CBOE's existing rules pertaining to the permissible bid/ask differentials that apply during the opening rotation.9 Thus, according the CBOE, this proposed modification does not make any substantive changes to the CBOE's existing rules relating to the permissible bid/ask differentials during the opening rotation.

9 For example, CBOE Rule 6.2B, “Hybrid Opening System,” provides that in calculating an Expected Opening Price during the opening, the quote of the Designated Primary Market Maker or at least one Market Maker or Lead Market Maker with an appointment in an options class must be present and comply with the legal width quote requirements of current CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(iv). In addition, CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(iv)(A) currently provides that for classes trading on Hybrid, the quote widths in CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(iv) apply during the opening rotation in each security.

New paragraph (C) of CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(iv) contains the permissible quote width differentials that apply to option classes trading on Hybrid and Hybrid 2.0. These quote width differentials were previously contained in CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(iv)(A). New paragraph (C) makes clear that the quote width differentials that apply to options classes trading on Hybrid are equally applicable to option classes trading on Hybrid 2.0. In addition, proposed new CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(iv)(C)(i) provides that the quote widths for in-the-money series of options classes trading on Hybrid and Hybrid 2.0 may be as wide as the quote width of the underlying security or index reported by the Exchange or its agent, as applicable, when that quote width is greater than $5. The CBOE states that these provisions are identical to International Securities Exchange (“ISE”) Rule 803(b)(4).

Additionally, proposed new paragraph (C) would permit the Exchange to establish permissible quote width differentials other than as provided in CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(iv)(C). For example, the Exchange may determine to grant bid/ask relief in the event of unusual circumstances, such as a pending merger or acquisition of an underlying security, a distribution of a special cash dividend, or other unusual circumstances. The CBOE believes that granting the Exchange the ability to establish quote width differentials greater than $5 in unusual circumstances will have no deleterious effects on average quote widths and will contribute to the maintenance of efficient markets. The CBOE notes that this provision is consistent with ISE Rule 803(b)(4), which grants the ISE the authority to establish quote width differences other than as provided in ISE Rule 803(b)(4).

2. Statutory Basis

The CBOE believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act 10 and the rules and regulations under the Act applicable to a national securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.11 Specifically, the CBOE believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements under Section 6(b)(5) 12 of the Act that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.

10 15 U.S.C. 78a et seq.

11 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).

12 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

The CBOE does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

The CBOE neither solicited nor received comments on the proposal.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for Commission Action

The CBOE has designated the proposed rule change as one that: (i) Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) does not impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) does not become operative for 30 days from the date of filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore, the foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act 13 and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.14 The CBOE has asked the Commission to waive the requirement in Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) 15 that the CBOE provide the Commission with written notice of its intention to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to filing the proposal with the Commission.

13 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).

14 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).

15 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).

Pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) under the Act, a proposal does not become operative for 30 days after the date of its filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. The CBOE has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay and to allow the proposal to become operative upon filing. In this regard, the CBOE states that the proposal raises no unique issues and that it reorganizes CBOE Rule 8.7 to make clear the bid/ask differential provisions that apply in open outcry, during the opening rotation, and to classes trading on Hybrid and Hybrid 2.0. In addition, the CBOE states that new subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(iv)(C) are consistent with ISE Rule 803(b)(4).

The Commission waives the five-day pre-filing requirement. In addition, the Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because the proposed changes to CBOE Rule 8.7 are consistent with existing CBOE or ISE rules.16 In this regard, current CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(iv), which applies to trading in open outcry and which will be renumbered as CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(iv)(A), provides that the bid/ask differential for in-the-money option series may be as wide as the bid/ask differential in the primary market for the underlying security. CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(iv)(A), as amended, extends this principal to in-the-money index option series by allowing the bids/ask differentials for these series to be as wide as the bid/ask differential calculated by the CBOE or its agent. Similarly, current CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(iv)(A), which will be renumbered as CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(iv)(C), provides that the quote widths specified in current CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(iv) apply to Hybrid classes during the opening rotation. New CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(iv)(B) applies these quote widths to the opening rotation in Hybrid classes, Hybrid 2.0 classes, and Non-Hybrid and Non-Hybrid 2.0 classes. The CBOE represents that this modification makes no substantive changes to the CBOE's existing rules relating to permissible bid/ask differentials during the opening rotation.17 New CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(4)(C)(i), which allows the bid/ask differential for in-the-money series trading on Hybrid and Hybrid 2.0 to be as wide as the quote width on the primary market or, for index options, as wide as the quote width calculated by the CBOE or its agent, is consistent with renumbered CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(iv)(A), as discussed above, and with current ISE Rule 803(b)(4)(i).18 New CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(4)(C)(ii), allowing the CBOE to establish quote width differentials other than the $5 width provided in CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(4)(C) for Hybrid and Hybrid 2.0 classes, is consistent with current CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(iv) and with ISE Rule 803(b)(4).19 In addition, new CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(4)(C) makes clear that the $5 bid/ask differential provided in that rule applies to both Hybrid and Hybrid 2.0 option classes. For these reasons, the Commission designates that the proposed rule change become operative as of the date of the filing of the proposal.

16 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

17See also note 9, supra.

18 ISE Rule 803(b)(4)(i) provides that the bid/ask differential for in-the-money series may be as wide as the quotation on the primary market of the underlying security.

19 Current CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(iv), which applies to trading in open outcry, allows the CBOE to establish bid/ask differentials other than those provided in CBOE Rule 8.7(b)(iv) for one or more options series. Similarly, ISE Rule 803(b)(4) allows the ISE to establish bid/ask differentials other than those specified in ISE Rule 803(b)(4) for one or more options series.

At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission may summarily abrogate the rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

• Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or

• Send an e-mail to rule-comments@sec.gov. Please include File Number SR-CBOE-2006-12 on the subject line.

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-CBOE-2006-12. This file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File No. SR-CBOE-2006-12 and should be submitted on or before March 3, 2006.

For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, pursuant to delegated authority.20

Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),1 and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,2 notice is hereby given that on January 23, 2006, the International Securities Exchange, Inc. (“ISE” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared by the ISE. On January 31, 2006, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.3 The ISE has designated this proposal as one establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge imposed by a self-regulatory organization pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act 4 and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,5 which renders the proposal effective upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change, as amended, from interested persons.

1 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).

2 17 CFR 240.19b-4.

3 In Amendment No. 1, the ISE corrected an error in Exhibit 5 of the original rule filing by eliminating certain inadvertent underlining. For purposes of calculating the 60-day period within which the Commission may summarily abrogate the proposed rule change the Commission considers the period to commence on January 31, 2006, the date on which the ISE filed Amendment No. 1. See 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).

4 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).

5 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the Proposed Rule Change

The ISE is proposing to amend its Schedule of Fees to change its Competitive Market Maker (“CMM”) Inactivity Fee. The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and at the Exchange's Web site: http://www.iseoptions.com/legal/proposed_rule_changes.asp).

In its filing with the Commission, the ISE included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposal. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.